i dont think the democrats have faith in us to take care of this through charities. why dont they have faith in us and the medical business? oh right they have no faith in anyone but themselves and their socialist friends.

12/22/2009 4:54:56 PM

You don't base national healthcare policy on a hope and a prayer ... If charity was an effective policy, we would not be having a debate right now.

12/22/2009 5:26:07 PM

Quote :

" Because we're not talking about providing health care, we're talking about providing health insurance. They are two vastly different things."

I got to here and stopped reading.

12/22/2009 6:45:41 PM

^^ And if the current system worked, we wouldn't be having this debate either.

12/22/2009 7:17:29 PM

Quote :

"Five Health Reform Whoppers by Michael D. Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. When it comes to health care reform, the White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seem to live in an alternate universe. The White House Council of Economic Advisers just released a report arguing that the reforms before Congress would reduce the growth in health costs, cut the federal budget deficits and produce thousands of dollars in benefits for the average family. The problem is that just a few days earlier a report from the president's own chief health care actuary concluded that the bill the Senate is considering would actually increase U.S. health spending by $234 billion over the next 10 years and hurt seniors' access to care. But then, reformers have generally had trouble telling fact from fiction. Among the biggest whoppers: 1) Health care reform will reduce your insurance premiums. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate bill does little or nothing to reduce insurance premiums. Even if the bill passes, premiums will roughly double by 2016, and keep rising after that. But for millions of Americans, the Senate bill will actually make things worse. According to the CBO, the bill would actually increase insurance premiums by 10 to 13 percent for Americans who don't receive insurance from their employers and buy their own insurance. These increases are over and above any increases that would occur if we did nothing. 2) Middle-class taxes won't be raised. The Senate bill raises at least 15 new or increased taxes totaling more than $493 billion. While some, like the increase in the payroll tax, would primarily hit the wealthy, many would fall solidly on the middle class. For example, the bill includes a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans, that is, insurance that is more generous than the government thinks it should be. According to the CBO, roughly 19 percent of workers would initially find their plans subject to the tax. However, because the tax threshold is set to increase at a rate slower than medical inflation, as time goes by more and more middle-class workers will be hit by it. Middle-class taxpayers would be taxed in other ways as well. The Senate bill would require everyone to buy a government-designed insurance plan, even if it were more expensive than their current policy. Failure to comply brings a penalty of up to $6,750 for a family of four. If the government took money directly from you, then turned around and gave it to an insurance company, everyone would agree that you've been taxed. How is that any different from the government mandating that you pay the insurer directly? 3) You can keep your current insurance. The Senate bill contains an individual mandate, that is, a requirement that every American must purchase health insurance. But not just any health insurance will satisfy that mandate. To qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. Those standards may be more expensive than your current plan, may include benefits you don't want and may even have benefits you are morally opposed to. As noted above, failure to comply brings a penalty of up to $6,750 for a family of four. 4) It will only cost $848 billion. It is true that the CBO officially scored the bill as costing $848 billion. But much of the spending is back-loaded. The bill doesn't start spending until 2014, and only costs $9 billion that year. By 2019, the annual cost hits $196 billion. The minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee reports the cost is closer to $2.5 trillion over 10 years once all budget gimmicks are factored out. If you include costs shifted to individuals, businesses and state governments, the price tag could top $6 trillion. 5) It will reduce the budget deficit. The CBO does say that the bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next 10 years (which is less than the deficit the government ran last month alone). However, even that tiny savings depends on budget gimmicks and the willingness of future Congresses to make huge cuts in Medicare spending. In fact, the CBO makes it clear that it will be "difficult" to achieve the predicted savings. "Facts," John Adams said, "are stubborn things." As the health care reform debate goes forward, it's worth keeping some of these facts in mind."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11054

12/22/2009 10:14:42 PM

this whole endeavor has been ridiculous on so many levels.

very sad.

12/22/2009 10:20:33 PM

Quoting the Cato Institute is hardly credible. They have a vested interest in healthcare insurance reform dying.

12/22/2009 10:22:51 PM

^
Don't we all have a vested interest in our health-care?

And if you're worried about lack of credibility, there are plenty of democrats to fit that bill.

Quote :

" Top SC prosecutor, others probing health care deal By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport, Associated Press Writer – Tue Dec 22, COLUMBIA, S.C. – The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday. Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state — all Republicans — are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise." "The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said. McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina. In a letter to McMaster, Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs. "We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49," Graham and DeMint wrote. Nebraska wasn't alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091223/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_deal_states

12/23/2009 2:09:27 AM

And if you're worried about lack of credibility, there are plenty of democrats to fit that bill.

Smooth transition

12/23/2009 3:44:09 AM

^^ Yeah, I posted a piece about that peculiar exemption on the last page. It was mostly ignored--it just doesn't fit the narrative of many left-wingers here.

Quote :

"SOLD: Sen. Nelson's Bribe http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/19/sen-nelsons-bribe/"

message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=46

12/23/2009 3:47:43 AM

the main thing I have seen now is 'Pubs questioning the Constitutionality of a bill that requires people to purchase a product, as well as deals like the Senator from Nebraska received (i.e...is it Constitutional for 2 Senators to agree that the American public as a whole will pay for Nebraska's medicare forever?)

12/23/2009 8:34:05 AM

Quote :

"Obamacare Slaps $15,000 Annual Fee on Middle Class Families by Terry Jeffrey The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the final Senate health care bill indicates it would slap a mandatory annual fee of about $15,000 on middle-class families that earn an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) and are not provided with health insurance by their employer. The CBO analysis cites five basic facts about the bill that acting together would deal a devastating financial blow to many middle-class families if the bill is enacted and enforced as written. "

Quote :

""I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax," - B. Obama 9/2008"

12/23/2009 10:27:24 AM

why on earth would you ever want to penalize people who are already paying for their own insurance.

bat shit crazy.

12/23/2009 11:30:23 AM

Am I missing something on this? 15,000 dollar annual penalty for...not having employee provided health insurance and making 88k for a family of four? Are you kidding me? 88k is barely enough to get by in California with a family. How did anyone think this was a good idea?

12/23/2009 11:54:34 AM

I imagine that no insurance provider in the nation will continue to stay the course without revising to meet the government mandated standards. So if you're currently insured you're going to have to go back to the negotiating table with your insurance company to make the mandated changes to your policy basically.

Of course there will be some market for insurance that isn't for covering the mandate. Maybe there will be baby insurance packages that covers just what the primary mandated coverage does. But when people go back to their insurance providers to update their plan to the new regulations... yeah... they'll probably get boned.

12/23/2009 12:38:31 PM

Quote :

"3. By your logic, health-care should be illegal."

How in the world did you reach that conclusion?

Quote :

"You don't base national healthcare policy on a hope and a prayer ... "

Oddly enough that's exactly what they're doing now. Basing this bill on the hopes a prayers that:

a) A government program, against all historical evidence, comes in on time and on budget
b) Future congresses will implement cuts to medicare / medicaid
c) The US Government can continue to borrow / print money with no ill effects
d) The religious right never gain power again (forget overturning Roe V. Wade, they'll just make abortion coverage a violation of the federal insurance standards)
e) We never again have a recession
f) The insurance companies won't use the fact that people are required by law to buy their services and new laws will make it harder for them to profit as an excuse to jack their rates through the roof (see banking bill)
g) Adding more middle men, more exchanges of money and more layers between the consumer and the product being consumed will reduce, not increase costs.

Quote :

"I got to here and stopped reading."

Why? Do you not think they're different? If you give a family below the poverty line an insurance plan with a $10,000 deductable and a 30% coinsurance, do you think you've actually significantly changed their current health status? Sure they're insured now, but they still face the same problems they faced before which is the inability to afford the first part of their care.

12/23/2009 1:35:32 PM

No dropped coverage for pre-existing conditions is a win, in and of itself.

Insurance is supposed to spread the risk. The bigger the pool, the more the risk can be spread around. Healthy people do pay for unhealthy ones ... that is insurance. Insurance companies were cherry-picking the risk, maximizing profits to the detriment of anyone that was sick. That is not insurance - that is a rigged game.

Fuck all of the haters .... at long last ... something is going to go through ... and if the Republicans don't like it, lord knows they've had their chance ...

12/23/2009 3:01:42 PM

Quote :

"Insurance is supposed to spread the risk. The bigger the pool, the more the risk can be spread around. Healthy people do pay for unhealthy ones ... that is insurance. Insurance companies were cherry-picking the risk, maximizing profits to the detriment of anyone that was sick. That is not insurance - that is a rigged game."

Actually that is insurance. For insurance to work, there has to be a good chance that it won't have to pay out. Otherwise, as I've said a bunch of times before, it's just a group savings account. Insurance is trading money for risk, if the risk is 100% there's no amount of money other than the cost of the risk that will buy you insurance. If I come up to you a tell you I have a $1,000 laptop I'm shipping via USPS across the country, and I'll give you $100 if you'd be wiling to pay for the full cost of the laptop if it doesn't make it, you might accept that.

If I told you the same thing, but I was sending the laptop via untrained carrier pigeon by way of the panama canal, you wouldn't take that deal unless you were brain damaged because there's no way the laptop will make it, and you will have to pay out.

It's the exact same thing when it comes to pre-existing conditions. It sucks absolutely, but the solution is not forcing insurance companies to accept any and all pre-existing conditions. A better solution would be, as I've brought up before, requiring insurance companies to cover treatments for conditions developed under a given insurance, regardless of who the current insurer is. There's no reason why if you develop cancer while covered by BCBS they should be able to end their payments of your treatment at the end of the year by not renewing you. You developed cancer while they were insuring you against developing cancer, so they should continue treating you until it is cured or you die. Not only does this provide an incentive for insurance companies to keep you despite health problems, but it also encourages them to keep your rates low.

12/23/2009 4:37:56 PM

Earth Dogg, how about you post the whole fucking biased article, or link to it, instead of just posting quotes that bias the reading of the article to favor your own stance.

See, I can do it too:

Quote :

"You will be eligible for a federal subsidy to help you buy health insurance"

Quote :

"The bill also would establish new insurance exchanges and would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families"

Quote :

" In particular, insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees' health."

Quote :

" if your employer drops your coverage and you are forced to buy it on your own -- will cost about $15,000 per year when the legislation is in full force in 2016."

See what I did there? I took an article written by someone with a bias against the current healthcare reform proposals, cherry picked the parts that seem great, or in the last case, elaborated on the misleading introduction and title of the article, and made it look as if the Bill was the best thing since sliced bread.

For anyone who wants to read the article, here it is:
http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryJeffrey/2009/12/23/obamacare_slaps_$15,000_annual_fee_on_middle_class_families

12/23/2009 5:38:04 PM

1337 b4k4:

Quote :

" For insurance to work, there has to be a good chance that it won't have to pay out."

I think you may be the one that doesn't know how insurance works. They are always paying out to a small percentage of the pool. The others pay in just in case they might ever need the services. Profit is the difference between the money coming in from those not sick and what goes out for healthcare cost.

I realize that profit can be maximized by not paying out, but for it to be fair it has to start with a random population. If you can skew the population so that you have only people you don't have to pay out to, that's not insurance, that's a scam.

12/23/2009 6:54:25 PM

^ I hope you don't mind, but I also want to use what you said as the beginning of another point. In addition to what you said, if the insurance companies are allowed to do what they've been doing, skewing the population to maximize profits, then what happens to the "uninsurable?" People are born with pre-existing conditions, and people may eventually have to leave their own healthcare that they had before they got sick. If they get into a large group plan, then they might get lucky, but if they have to get insurance on their own, they're screwed. They either have to pay out the nose, which they may not even afford to pay for astronomical rates, or they won't get covered.

The system as it now favors the healthy be keeping them healthy If you're already sick, you're boned. And a health care system shouldn't be run like that. There's no reason to have a system that discriminates against the sick like it does now.

What I don't understand is how can people be against having insurance companies being unable to discriminate against the sick. The people who are for the current insurance system, are you not aware that you yourself may end up as one of the unfortunate? Are you that cocky that you think that nothing bad will happen to you? Do you just not want to think about ever being unfortunate? Are you that high up in your ivory towers that you don't think you can fall out? Do you think you have all your bases covered that you'll never end up being screwed? That you'll never lose your group plan, or that you'll never lose your job and be unable to afford health insurance?

Whether you'd like to admit it or not, or whether you don't ever want to think about the prospect of losing your cozy security blanket, the current system DOES put you at risk.

If you think that the GOP's wishes to try to lower costs through allowing you to purchase insurance across state lines, having tort reform, allowing individuals and small businesses to pool together and get a large group plan (how they even plan to force that into allowing insurance companies to do that is beyond me) is going to help prevent you from being without insurance in a time when you can't afford it will work, then you're crazy.

All that the GOP's plan does is make health insurance cheaper for those who already have it, and I AM FOR THAT. As to how much cheaper, who knows really? It's one of those things you won't really find out if it works until it's put into practice, but in theory, it sounds like it will help. But what I don't see GOP's plans helping out is people who currently can't afford health insurance. Yeah, it will help out a few people, but people who are considered the "working poor," I don't see their plans as helping them in any way. I see it as truly helping those who can just barely afford health insurance now and helping those who can barely not afford health insurance now, and that's if their plans do anything.

There's still the issue of a lot of uninsured people, especially those who refuse. Because whether you realize it or not, they DO impact YOUR premiums. Hospitals and doctors DO pass on some of THEIR costs onto YOUR health bills, which YOUR insurance company pays for. They do this to lower the bills for uninsured people so that they might actually be able to pay the hospital bill, all while upping your bills. That doesn't seem very fair at all, but that's how the system is. I feel that by getting more people insured, especially those who choose to go without insurance, it will help lower premiums as well.

12/23/2009 7:29:54 PM

Quote :

"I think you may be the one that doesn't know how insurance works. They are always paying out to a small percentage of the pool. The others pay in just in case they might ever need the services."

In other words, as I said, in order for insurance to work, there has to be a good chance they won't have to pay out. By pooling risk, the companies are able to take on and insure people with whom they will be paying out constantly that is true, but the rule still applies. For any given dollar of premiums, the chance they will need to pay that back out to you during the given period of insurance is small.

Quote :

"If you can skew the population so that you have only people you don't have to pay out to, that's not insurance, that's a scam."

Which is why you can't buy insurance to insure against you spontaneously changing sex in the middle of the night. Well, you might be able to, but you'd be stupid to, because there's no chance of payout.

What you're exaggerating on, and what insurance companies do, is attempt to mitigate their risk by choosing customers who represent a smaller risk. How else do you think some car insurance companies keep low rates? They choose only drivers who have clean driving records, and little or no accidents. Is that also a scam?

Quote :

"People are born with pre-existing conditions, and people may eventually have to leave their own healthcare that they had before they got sick. If they get into a large group plan, then they might get lucky, but if they have to get insurance on their own, they're screwed. They either have to pay out the nose, which they may not even afford to pay for astronomical rates, or they won't get covered. "

There are a number of ways to solve or reduce these problems. As I've said before, requiring coverage of chronic conditions to continue until the condition is cured or the person is dead would help. More leeway in what insurance plans can and can't cover would help to, as well as more competition and a la carte insurance. There's no reason in the world why a person with cancer or diabetes should not be able to get insurance to cover back injuries and broken bones.

Quote :

"The system as it now favors the healthy be keeping them healthy If you're already sick, you're boned. And a health care system shouldn't be run like that. There's no reason to have a system that discriminates against the sick like it does now. "

The system discriminates against the sick because everything is paid for by insurance. If we moved away from insurance paying for everything, we would find a system that caters to the sick. Why? Because doctors won't turn away sick people. It would also help if we eliminated employer care. Why should insurance companies care about individuals, when the companies are the real money makers. It doesn't matter that Cigna has a reputation of telling sick people to fuck off and die, because the companies are the ones shopping for insurance, not the individuals. But, if Cigna had to fight for each individual employee at your company, they would suddenly be a lot more receptive to the wants of the individuals.

Quote :

"What I don't understand is how can people be against having insurance companies being unable to discriminate against the sick."

Because insuring against becoming sick, by definition requires you to not be sick. Otherwise it's just a group savings account.

Quote :

"The people who are for the current insurance system, are you not aware that you yourself may end up as one of the unfortunate? Are you that cocky that you think that nothing bad will happen to you? Do you just not want to think about ever being unfortunate? Are you that high up in your ivory towers that you don't think you can fall out? Do you think you have all your bases covered that you'll never end up being screwed? That you'll never lose your group plan, or that you'll never lose your job and be unable to afford health insurance?"

1) Being against the currently proposed "reforms" does not make one for the current system.
2) Been there, done that.

Quote :

"If you think that the GOP's wishes to try to lower costs through allowing you to purchase insurance across state lines, having tort reform, allowing individuals and small businesses to pool together and get a large group plan (how they even plan to force that into allowing insurance companies to do that is beyond me) is going to help prevent you from being without insurance in a time when you can't afford it will work, then you're crazy. "

Again, the GOP != all the opposition to the current "reforms"

Quote :

"Because whether you realize it or not, they DO impact YOUR premiums. Hospitals and doctors DO pass on some of THEIR costs onto YOUR health bills, which YOUR insurance company pays for. They do this to lower the bills for uninsured people so that they might actually be able to pay the hospital bill, all while upping your bills. That doesn't seem very fair at all, but that's how the system is. I feel that by getting more people insured, especially those who choose to go without insurance, it will help lower premiums as well."

The solution to this problem is not adding more middle men and forcing insurance companies to insure the uninsurable. Nothing in the current proposed reforms will reduce the costs for anyone. Tell me, which do you think costs more, a hospital writing off a procedure and passing off the cost to paying customer, or an insurance company paying for that procedure and passing the costs off to their paying customers?

Again, look at Massachusetts, this is what we're trying to do, and it is a failure because health insurance != health care.

This isn't about providing medical care to people. If it were we'd be talking about opening up Walter Reed to people making below the poverty line. This is about government power grabs, and bailing out insurance companies. This is about lining politicians pockets and locking up the medical insurance industry against competition for years to come. The insurance companies know they're running up against a brick wall, people can't afford their premiums directly, and even businesses are starting to look for alternatives. So is it any surprise that the insurance companies support legislation that forces every American to buy their product and locks down the ability for new competitors to enter the market?

12/23/2009 9:01:51 PM

Quote :

"I feel that by getting more people insured, especially those who choose to go without insurance, it will help lower premiums as well."

Lots of products would be cheaper if we have the gov't force everyone to buy it. But there is nothing in the Constitution that grants congress the power to force people to buy a product or service from a private company.

12/23/2009 9:54:04 PM

CASH FOR CLOTURE
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank coins a new political moniker.
Dec 22, 2009

Quote :

"Formally, it is known as H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But this week, it has acquired an unhelpful nickname: 'Cash for Cloture.' As Senate Democrats finally complete their health-care legislation, those combing through the bill have uncovered many backroom deals that were made to buy, er, secure the 60 votes needed to 'invoke cloture' -- the legislative term for cutting off debate and holding a final vote. It will take years to see how well the measure reduces costs and expands insurance coverage. But already, the bill has been a bonanza for wordsmiths. First there was the 'Louisiana Purchase,' $100 million in extra Medicaid money for the Bayou State, requested by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). Then came the 'Cornhusker Kickback,' another $100 million in extra Medicaid money, this time for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). This was followed by word that Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) had written into the legislation $100 million meant for a medical center in his state. This one was quickly dubbed the 'U Con.'"

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/79902857.html

12/23/2009 10:48:44 PM

Quote :

"There are a number of ways to solve or reduce these problems. As I've said before, requiring coverage of chronic conditions to continue until the condition is cured or the person is dead would help. More leeway in what insurance plans can and can't cover would help to, as well as more competition and a la carte insurance. There's no reason in the world why a person with cancer or diabetes should not be able to get insurance to cover back injuries and broken bones."

While your idea of forcing insurance companies to keep insuring sick people is a novel one, it still leaves unaddressed the issue of people who become sick when they don't have coverage. It can help diabetics who are laid off, provided that they can still pay for the coverage. So your idea doesn't fix the problem. It addresses one element of the problem.

Additionally, your idea about allowing people with diabetes to get coverage on any but diabetes doesn't do much to solve the issue either. Insulin and supplies is very expensive, even if you have coverage. IIRC, the guy I worked with paid about 90 bucks for a vile of insulin, and I think 1 vile was supposed to last 2 weeks. That's 180 bucks a month. And this was WITH insurance. This also didn't count visits to his doctor, which cost a lot (I don't recall the cost off the top of my head). I also recall him paying off a 3 thousand dollar insulin pump (which is what he owed after insurance picked up part of the tab).

Getting coverage for everything but a pre-existing condition would help. But it's still bullshit that they aren't able to get coverage for a pre-existing condition, and that under the current system, it doesn't seem that they ever could without getting in on a group plan under a large corporation (which is what happened to him).

Quote :

"The system discriminates against the sick because everything is paid for by insurance."

What does it matter to a company if a sick person become sick while under their coverage to taking on a sick person? Either way, the insurance company is paying for a sick money and losing money from them. Correct? It is the insurance company. There is no guarantee that they can always make money.

As far as employer care, I do agree with your stance in that regard. People with pre-existing conditions are currently confined to working for large companies if they lose their coverage. People shouldn't be forced to work only for large companies because of a condition. Conversely, if employer care were to end, then there would HAVE to be a way to cover sick people, as those people would lose their coverage and have to shop around independently. It would make things worse for them, either because they have to pay more or they'll be denied coverage.

Quote :

"Being against the currently proposed "reforms" does not make one for the current system."

You're right. My questions were aimed at people who say things like, "well, the current system works fine FOR ME."

Quote :

"Again, the GOP != all the opposition to the current "reforms""

I didn't say that it was.

Quote :

"The solution to this problem is not adding more middle men and forcing insurance companies to insure the uninsurable. Nothing in the current proposed reforms will reduce the costs for anyone. Tell me, which do you think costs more, a hospital writing off a procedure and passing off the cost to paying customer, or an insurance company paying for that procedure and passing the costs off to their paying customers? Again, look at Massachusetts, this is what we're trying to do, and it is a failure because health insurance != health care. This isn't about providing medical care to people. If it were we'd be talking about opening up Walter Reed to people making below the poverty line. This is about government power grabs, and bailing out insurance companies. This is about lining politicians pockets and locking up the medical insurance industry against competition for years to come. The insurance companies know they're running up against a brick wall, people can't afford their premiums directly, and even businesses are starting to look for alternatives. So is it any surprise that the insurance companies support legislation that forces every American to buy their product and locks down the ability for new competitors to enter the market?"

I don't think that the current reforms are the best, but I do feel that it will be better than what we have now. No aspect of any bill will ever satisfy everyone. And currently, there's two parties who have power, the democrats and republicans, and out of either side, I think that the democrat's ideas get to the crux of the issue better than the republican's ideas. No, I don't think their ideas are the best. Yes, I would like to see both side's ideas present in a bill, along with outside ideas. But with how things are now in congress, it's not going to happen, pure and simple.

Earth Dogg:

Quote :

"Lots of products would be cheaper if we have the gov't force everyone to buy it. But there is nothing in the Constitution that grants congress the power to force people to buy a product or service from a private company."

And you know, the constitution doesn't explicitly allow congress the ability to draft people into the military, and yet, I don't see you or anyone else raising the legality of it. The constitution only allows the government to maintain a standing army, but there is no mention of how they're allowed to do it.

Not only that, how can this be unconstitutional if the federal government is allowed full reign on the tax code? Lets be honest here. The government isn't "FORCING" anyone to do anything. They can either pay for health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Where in the constitution does it permit the government to force single people to pay higher taxes than couples? Aren't the FORCING single people to get married? It's that "unconstitutional?" You are being penalized for being single.

Where does the government get the power to impose a 10% tax for early withdrawal of an IRA or 401K? Huh? Isn't that unconstitutional? I don't see that mentioned in the Constitution.

Tax penalties are nothing new, and I have yet to hear of one being unconstitutional. There's a reason why there isn't a strict provision in the bill that explicitly states something along the lines of, "Failure to carry health insurance is punishable by law," because it's not being punished under law, it's being punished through tax.

12/23/2009 11:02:47 PM

Quote :

"While your idea of forcing insurance companies to keep insuring sick people is a novel one, it still leaves unaddressed the issue of people who become sick when they don't have coverage."

The hell it doesn't. it gives you a damned good incentive to get insurance when you are healthy. As opposed to the current bill, which gives you almost no incentive to do so.

Quote :

"But it's still bullshit that they aren't able to get coverage for a pre-existing condition"

How do you figure? How is it bullshit that you can't come up to someone and say "hey, I'll give you 100 bux to pay for my million dollar condition. oh, and you have to take the deal"?

Quote :

"And currently, there's two parties who have power, the democrats and republicans, and out of either side, I think that the democrat's ideas get to the crux of the issue better than the republican's ideas."

How? what do you think the "crux" of the issue is? That people don't have insurance? If you think that is it, then you are mistaken.

Quote :

"Lets be honest here. The government isn't "FORCING" anyone to do anything. They can either pay for health insurance or pay a tax penalty."

Bullshit. How about Congress passes a law that says you have to give me a blow job every day or pay me 100 bux every day. Is that ok? the government isn't "FORCING" you to give me a blow job, right? Come on.

Quote :

"Tax penalties are nothing new, and I have yet to hear of one being unconstitutional."

It's one thing to have a tax. it's entirely another to have a tax for not purchasing something. btw, punished by tax is the same as punished by law.

12/23/2009 11:19:34 PM

Oh aaronburro, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I guess I can get one too. Lets see how it works out.

Quote :

"The hell it doesn't. it gives you a damned good incentive to get insurance when you are healthy. As opposed to the current bill, which gives you almost no incentive to do so."

And what if you fucking can't get insurance? You seem to be under the illusion that EVERYONE can afford health insurance, and that those who can't afford health insurance, have medicaid. If you are under such illusion, then you're fucking wrong. NOT everyone can get insurance. Not everyone has a job that offers group insurance and not everyone can afford it individually. But I guess you just say, "eh, Fuck em." If that's your attitude, I hope for your sake that you're never in that position, because you'll be lucky if I tell you to fuck off.

Quote :

"How do you figure? How is it bullshit that you can't come up to someone and say "hey, I'll give you 100 bux to pay for my million dollar condition. oh, and you have to take the deal"?"

So what do you propose that people who have pre-existing conditions do? Fucking die? You are aware that when you leave school, you'll come off your parents insurance, right? What are diabetics supposed to do when they come off their parents insurance? Hope they get a nice union job or work for a big company that has a large group plan? It doesn't always fucking work out that way. But what the fuck do you care about? You likely don't have a "pre-existing" condition now, and if you do, it seems like you've got health coverage.

Quote :

"How? what do you think the "crux" of the issue is? That people don't have insurance? If you think that is it, then you are mistaken."

You haven't read what I've said. How about you take the fucking time to read. The crux of the issue is people who want to get insurance are unable to, either because it's too expensive and their employer doesn't offer a group plan (which is common in small businesses, especially as plans keep getting more and more expensive), or the companies who do offer group plans are having to keep raise the premiums for their employees because the companies are taking too big a hit. Also, people who have pre-existing conditions are finding themselves laid off, and after having their severance package run out, they find themselves on unemployment, unable to get insurance on their own, because insurance companies won't take the risk.

So please, oh fucking wise one. What do you propose? Please. Explain what could be done to help people who can't afford health insurance. What can be done to help those with pre-existing conditions. But I won't be surprised if your response is, "Get a fucking job," or "Get a better job."

Quote :

"Bullshit. How about Congress passes a law that says you have to give me a blow job every day or pay me 100 bux every day. Is that ok? the government isn't "FORCING" you to give me a blow job, right? Come on."

I don't hear you bitching about the draft. Find that in the Constitution. Please, find it in the Constitution where it EXPLICITLY says that they're allowed to send your ass out on a field to have it come back as swiss cheese. You can't. I don't see where it says in the Constitution where the government FORCES you to not touch YOUR money if you put it into an "approved" retirement savings plan until you retire. Wait. You can't find that either.

Quote :

"btw, punished by tax is the same as punished by law."

[citation needed]

12/24/2009 12:11:12 AM

Quote :

"And what if you fucking can't get insurance? You seem to be under the illusion that EVERYONE can afford health insurance, and that those who can't afford health insurance, have medicaid. If you are under such illusion, then you're fucking wrong. NOT everyone can get insurance. Not everyone has a job that offers group insurance and not everyone can afford it individually. But I guess you just say, "eh, Fuck em." If that's your attitude, I hope for your sake that you're never in that position, because you'll be lucky if I tell you to fuck off."

you sure do like to cry crocodile tears over a vast minority of people. Do those people exist? Sure. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to warrant a major government takeover? No, not at all. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to justify this piece of legislation? Hell no.

Quote :

"So what do you propose that people who have pre-existing conditions do? Fucking die?"

Of course not. grow the fuck up. There is a choice other than "no insurance to these people at all, ever" and "rape every one else by requiring insurance to no longer act like insurance." The funny thing is that one part of the solution for this has already been mentioned. But you keep bringing it up. over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You are a one-trick pony.

Quote :

"How about you take the fucking time to read. The crux of the issue is people who want to get insurance are unable to"

And you are WRONG. that is NOT the crux of the issue. That insurance is what pays for the majority of healthcare is the problem.

Quote :

"I don't hear you bitching about the draft. Find that in the Constitution."

That one thing may or may not be Constitutional does not justify creating another thing that is clearly not Constitutional.

Quote :

"[citation needed]"

The tax code is the fucking law. durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


but, tell me, dude. If your house was on fire, should a home-owners insurance company be forced to accept your application that you submitted as the fire raged?

12/24/2009 12:21:48 AM

Quote :

"you sure do like to cry crocodile tears over a vast minority of people. Do those people exist? Sure. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to warrant a major government takeover? No, not at all. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to justify this piece of legislation? Hell no."

Are you fucking kidding me? I sure hope you're trolling, because if you're not. You're a fucking moron. Roughly 15.4% of the population is uninsured, that's about 46.3 million people. Is that not significant? Are you disillusioned enough, or dumb enough, to think that the vast majority (90%) of those people are people who WANT to be uninsured? This number is not representative of the number of people who were without insurance during any point of the year. That number is much higher, around 89 million Americans. Again, is that not significant enough?

If 15% of the population isn't enough, then what is enough? And while I can't tell you what percentage of that 15% is due in part from people who don't WANT insurance, neither can you (but you'll try).

BUT, the amount of uninsured people ARE significant and the amount of people who CAN'T afford insurance is also significant.

Quote :

"Of course not. grow the fuck up. There is a choice other than "no insurance to these people at all, ever" and "rape every one else by requiring insurance to no longer act like insurance." The funny thing is that one part of the solution for this has already been mentioned. But you keep bringing it up. over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You are a one-trick pony."

Wow, you're telling me to "grow the fuck up." You're saying that after your dumbass said:

Quote :

"Bullshit. How about Congress passes a law that says you have to give me a blow job every day or pay me 100 bux every day."

How about you answer the fucking question and stop avoiding it with your childish troll antics.

Quote :

"And you are WRONG. that is NOT the crux of the issue. That insurance is what pays for the majority of healthcare is the problem."

No, YOU'RE [B]WRONG[/B]. You seem to not understand the meaning of the word "crux."

So I'll give your wrong ass a clear cut definition:
a vital, basic, decisive, or pivotal point

The "basic," or "vital" or "pivotal point" as to why the issue of health care reform has been brought up is because people can't afford health care without insurance. It's not necessarily the fact that insurance pays for the majority of healthcare in the US. We don't have to get rid of private insurance to make insurance more affordable.

We have two options on health insurance reform. Make it so that people can afford private health insurance through subsides OR get rid of private health insurance as the primary payers and go with a national insurance system paid for by the government through taxes. Those are solutions to the issues. One of which is fixing a cause to the solution, OR, getting rid of the cause.

Lets me break it down for you even more:

Issue- people not able to afford health care/insurance and costs keep going up.
Cause- current system of health insurance.

Funny that you said what you said, but you didn't even correctly identify the issue. You identified the cause, or what would be considered a cause of the issue.

Quote :

"That one thing may or may not be Constitutional does not justify creating another thing that is clearly not Constitutional."

I never said it wasn't Constitutional. Go read up on implied powers doggy.

Quote :

"The tax code is the fucking law"

And yet there's nothing in the constitution that specifies where a tax can or cannot be unconstitutional. I'm not expert on tax law, but I'd venture to guess that you aren't either.

Quote :

"but, tell me, dude. If your house was on fire, should a home-owners insurance company be forced to accept your application that you submitted as the fire raged?"

Try using examples that are analogous to one another.

If your example was, "If your house was on fire and the home-owners insurance company dropped you from coverage after the fire, and other companies wouldn't take you on following the fire," then I guess your example would be more applicable.

But unfortunately home-owners insurance is rarely tied up with people's reliance on their jobs, now are they? If you lose your job, the day after your house burns down and you don't declare by the time your severance package runs out on your job, well, I have to ask, won't you still have your home-owner's insurance? By God, I think you will.

Try again.

12/24/2009 1:11:42 AM

It has passed the senate this morning as of a few minutes ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34584011/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Quote :

"Senate passes historic health care legislation Unusual Christmas Eve vote symbolic in ongoing debate WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill early Thursday morning that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in U.S. history. Ahead lie complex talks with the House to reach final legislation in the new year. Just before the vote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said "We stand on the doorstep of history. We recognize that, but much more importantly, we stand so close to making so many individual lives better." The vote Thursday on the bill extending health care coverage to some 31 million uninsured Americans brings Obama's closer to achieving his top domestic priority. The White House and Congress have now come farther toward the goal of a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. health care system than any of their predecessors."

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 7:33 AM. Reason : .]

12/24/2009 7:32:38 AM

OMG Harry Reid said 'No' initially. Freudian slip!!!1 Faux News jumped all over that one. . .

12/24/2009 7:39:27 AM

If you don't understand how prices are determined and what causes costs to go up and down, you will not be able to solve the healthcare problem. When this bill makes the problem worse, and it will, there will be more "reforms," assuming our system of government doesn't collapse first. I've provided so many solutions in this thread and other threads that would bring down costs for everyone, guaranteed, but no one cares. The supporters of this bill don't want real solutions. Any solution that doesn't involve health insurance for everyone isn't a solution, to them, because it doesn't match up with their political agenda.

In a free market, prices should go down. Just look at laser eye surgery - not covered by insurance, usually. The procedure keeps getting better, safer, and more accessible around the country. Does the cost go up? No. The price has gone down substantially since it came out years ago. And it continues to get cheaper. Prices always go down over time, until the government gets involved. Congress tries to legislate lower costs because they don't understand the price mechanism, and all we get is higher costs. It isn't by random chance that healthcare is getting more expensive. It is a direct result of government intervention and regulations.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 8:51 AM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 8:50:10 AM

I agree that there are more solutions that could have been implemented - like allowing for cash payments for routine visits, etc. Why the fuck didn't the Republicans do something about it when they had their chance! They could have done something real and taken the credit for it. Now they're reduced to complaining about what did get done. In the words of someone famous: "Do something, or STFU!" (There is nothing to stop them from still trying to implement some of those solutions by the way.)

As I have said before, not being able to be dropped for pre-existing conditions is a win in and of itself. Health insurance is not like car insurance. You can choose how you drive, you can not always choose your health. In order for health insurance to work there has to be a large pool, randomly selected, so that the healthy can pay for the sick, until the healthy become sick anyway, at which time they start using the services. Anything else is a rigged game. The goal of requiring insurance is to get the 15% of the population without insurance into the pool.

I know that you think the government can do nothing and the free market can do everything, but I don't think the goal of our national healthcare system should revolve around maximizing corporate profits. That's an easy task in the insurance business. You just take money in, and don't pay out. Lord knows we've seen enough of those tactics being used by way of pre-existing condition and nit-picky insurance rules which all seem find reasons not to pay.

In short, I do think there are common sense things that could have been done, and I wish the Republicans would have done some of them. But they were too far in the pockets of those making good money dropping people they would have to pay out for - to the detriment of the general public. In truth, the Republicans didn't want to do anything. Now that the outcry has gotten to the point where something has to be done all the Republicans can do is complain that we are not doing the right things. STFU, you had your chance. As someone once said, "The problem with Socialism is Socialism. The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists." I don't think the government can do it all, but I also don't think the free market can cure all ills - like looking after everyone's healthcare interests.

Quote :

"... there will be more "reforms," assuming our system of government doesn't collapse first ..."

That about sums up your idealogical, dogmatic thinking.



[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

12/24/2009 11:22:30 AM

Quote :

"Roughly 15.4% of the population is uninsured, that's about 46.3 million people. Is that not significant?"

No, because not all of those people fit the crocodile tear version of things you painted. In addition, many of those people already qualify for gov't assistance. And that's not even counting the fact that that number includes illegal aliens.

Quote :

"How about you answer the fucking question and stop avoiding it with your childish troll antics."

How about you answer my questions. I see that you didn't even try to refute the point I was getting at. The example was absurd for a reason.

Quote :

"The "basic," or "vital" or "pivotal point" as to why the issue of health care reform has been brought up is because people can't afford health care without insurance."

I can agree with this. I've practically said so. But that's not what YOU said was the crux of the issue. You said the crux was that lots of people were uninsured.

Quote :

"We have two options on health insurance reform."

That's a false dilemma.

Quote :

"And yet there's nothing in the constitution that specifies where a tax can or cannot be unconstitutional."

Moving the goalposts, eh? You said that being punished by a tax is not the same as being punished by law. good work, man. Btw, there is something in the Constitution that says whether a tax can be unconstitutional. Of course, it was amended, but still.

Quote :

"Try using examples that are analogous to one another."

How is it not analogous? if you have cancer and roll up to health insurance company, how is that different than if you have a house fire and roll up to a homeowners insurance company? They are the same thing. How about YOU try again.

Quote :

"But unfortunately home-owners insurance is rarely tied up with people's reliance on their jobs, now are they?"

That doesn't change the analogy that was presented. Try again.

Quote :

"Why the fuck didn't the Republicans do something about it when they had their chance! "

So, let me get this straight: you can only rail against an awful bill that will make things much worse if you tried to pass something yourself previously?

12/24/2009 11:42:14 AM

^^Actually, I desperately hope that I'm wrong about everything I believe on that subject. I hope that Keynesian economics is correct and that the government will be able to save this country from economic disaster, because if it isn't, I'm going to be one of the people that suffers greatly. Do you think I want hyperinflation or some other kind of severe economic downturn, just so I can say "I told you so"? How does that benefit me in any way? I just graduated not that long ago and I barely have any money saved. It's my life at stake. I'd like to just pretend, like you and most Americans, that we're going to recover from this and everything will go back to normal. Unfortunately, everything I have read and studied leads me to a totally different conclusion. Just look at my post in this thread: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=556098&page=49. How can you read that and think that we're not in some deep shit?

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 11:45:44 AM

Quote :

"So, let me get this straight: you can only rail against an awful bill that will make things much worse if you tried to pass something yourself previously?"

It would make the complaints more credible ....

12/24/2009 11:59:37 AM

how? If this bill is a terrible terrible bill, how can one not point that out?

12/24/2009 12:07:25 PM

Quote :

"I agree that there are more solutions that could have been implemented - like allowing for cash payments for routine visits, etc. Why the fuck didn't the Republicans do something about it when they had their chance! They could have done something real and taken the credit for it. Now they're reduced to complaining about what did get done. In the words of someone famous: "Do something, or STFU!" (There is nothing to stop them from still trying to implement some of those solutions by the way.) As I have said before, not being able to be dropped for pre-existing conditions is a win in and of itself. Health insurance is not like car insurance. You can choose how you drive, you can not always choose your health. In order for health insurance to work there has to be a large pool, randomly selected, so that the healthy can pay for the sick, until the healthy become sick anyway, at which time they start using the services. Anything else is a rigged game. The goal of requiring insurance is to get the 15% of the population without insurance into the pool."

you havent been paying attention. Republicans tried to provide numerous alternatives and were shot down in committee. Dems did nothing to include the Right because they didnt need to.

pre-existing conditions is the problem. in some cases, I can see the arguments for allowing it. in most, I cannot. the bottom line is Americans should be responsible for taking care of themselves. if a person makes carrying health insurance a priority and never let their policies lapse (which plenty of people do), they have nothing to worry about. if they are irresponsible and choose to roll with the new i-phone and the unlimited data plan instead, I dont want to hear the bitching.

of course, none of that speaks to the economics (or feasibility) of allowing a person to insure something AFTER they have a problem. it is impossible. further, that 15% of the population still cant afford the insurance...they will just sit on the sideline, pay the penalty, then rush to buy the insurance they day they get sick. this will be a disaster IMO.

12/24/2009 12:25:28 PM

^ the pre-existing condition thing is not just for people who are “irresponsible” as you are alleging. The majority of people that get burned by that are more than likely just normal people.

It’s probably the one part of the bill that most people actually support. Republicans would have never been able to remove that without getting railed by the public for it.

Quote :

"of course, none of that speaks to the economics (or feasibility) of allowing a person to insure something AFTER they have a problem. it is impossible. further, that 15% of the population still cant afford the insurance...they will just sit on the sideline, pay the penalty, then rush to buy the insurance they day they get sick. this will be a disaster IMO."

This is better than how things are now, where this same person will STILL need healthcare, it’s just a toss-up on who pays for it. The hospital can do it, taking a hit, or the gov. can do it, allowing the hospital to keep their costs down. So this person who would have never had health insurance anyway has their costs defrayed by millions of tax payer, instead of the few thousand people who cater to that hospital.

You, and many other people, don’t seem to realize that if you currently have insurance, very little, more than likely nothing, will change for you in a practical sense under the plan (for various reason). The biggest difference is that the the gov. will be taking in more money primarily from the currently uninsured, to cover the costs that they were already covering in an indirect way, or to help cover the costs hospitals were covering for these same people.

It’s not an ideal plan in many ways, but it still at the very least helps out hospitals.


V

Quote :

"That's because the average American is too stupid to understand how insurance works."

If you actually believe this, then why would you support a system that ignores this fact? If you think the average person is too dumb for X, then wouldn’t the best system be designed to allow for this fact?

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 12:31:29 PM

That's because the average American is too stupid to understand how insurance works. We're going to bankrupt the insurance companies, and the government can "save the day" by bailing them out, or just letting them go out of business, and coming in with a single payer system.

Quote :

"If you actually believe this, then why would you support a system that ignores this fact? If you think the average person is too dumb for X, then wouldn’t the best system be designed to allow for this fact?"

When I say Americans are too stupid to understand how insurance works, I'm referring to the ban on denying pre-existing conditions. If you understand how insurance companies make money, you realize that they would be irrational for them to accept someone into the plan who already has a condition that is expensive to treat. So, the legislation forces them to take a loss. The only payback for the loss is a 750 annual penalty, which is much less than it actually costs to get health insurance. That's why I say insurance companies are going to go bankrupt. If they're forced to pay out millions of dollars for someone that is effectively paying 750 a year in premiums, they cannot operate profitably, period.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 12:34:18 PM

Quote :

"you havent been paying attention. Republicans tried to provide numerous alternatives and were shot down in committee. Dems did nothing to include the Right because they didnt need to. ... Americans should be responsible for taking care of themselves. if a person makes carrying health insurance a priority and never let their policies lapse (which plenty of people do), they have nothing to worry about."

The thing is, the Republicans had eight years before Obama to do anything (and they had majorities in both houses). They just chose the heathcare industry over the healthcare recipients. To say that the Democrats didn't need the Republicans is an oversimplification -considering all of the hoops they had to jump through to get this thing passed. The Republican's main goal has been to derail anything that comes up - and history has born that out. That's why I said complaints would be more credible if they had tried to do something to solve any of the healthcare problems while they were in office. In their eyes there were no big problems. The general public on the other hand didn't see it the same way.

As far as letting insurance lapse goes, it's not always a matter of irresponsability. As a matter of fact, usually it's just a matter of chaning jobs (whether it's your choice or not). If you change jobs you can have your health problems be classified as "pre-existing", thereby making you uninsurable. It was just a bad system - unless of course you have a vested interest in it.

P.S. to d357r0y3r - Think your freemarket ideology is hindering your ability to understand how insurance works. With public insurance the goal is not to pick people you will never have to pay out to, the goal is too have a large enough pool so that the healthy people pay for the unheathy ones, until they themselves need services.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

12/24/2009 12:57:33 PM

Quote :

"As far as letting insurance lapse goes, it's not always a matter of irresponsability. As a matter of fact, usually it's just a matter of chaning jobs (whether it's your choice or not). If you change jobs you can have your health problems be classified as "pre-existing", thereby making you uninsurable. It was just a bad system - unless of course you have a vested interest in it."

You realize that employers didn't just start providing benefits randomly, right? The government allows them to pay employers in health benefits (rather than wages), which means they don't have to pay taxes on it. That caused most employers to start providing them. If the government hadn't provided that subsidy, we wouldn't be seeing the issue your referring to.

12/24/2009 1:04:03 PM

Quote :

"When I say Americans are too stupid to understand how insurance works, I'm referring to the ban on denying pre-existing conditions. If you understand how insurance companies make money, you realize that they would be irrational for them to accept someone into the plan who already has a condition that is expensive to treat. So, the legislation forces them to take a loss. The only payback for the loss is a 750 annual penalty, which is much less than it actually costs to get health insurance. That's why I say insurance companies are going to go bankrupt. If they're forced to pay out millions of dollars for someone that is effectively paying 750 a year in premiums, they cannot operate profitably, period. "

Youre presuming things will work how you are saying they will work, when I don’t think they will work that way.

And I think Americans DO understand how insurance works. I think people DON’T understand why insurance companies are posting billions in profits and executive compensation, yet are dropping people who got sick through no known fault of their own, or won’t cover someone who recently lost their job, or left school, or changed jobs, or became self employed, or whatever. The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of people aren’t going to suffer a catastrophic illness, but modern medicine for those who do is very expensive. This is fundamentally the reason health insurance exists. It’s practically a voluntary communist system… the bulk of us lose money on insurance premiums, the rest break even, and a tiny amount get a huge benefit.

You’re buying into the insurance companies crocodile tears that they will buckle under this pressure, but this won’t happen. I also don’t think that the few people who need catastrophic coverage is going to outweigh the $750/year from the people who take the penalty or the X$/year from people who get coverage under the new regs.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 1:05:27 PM

Quote :

"If the government hadn't provided that subsidy, we wouldn't be seeing the issue your referring to."

"But, it is an issue Beulah. It is an issue ..."

12/24/2009 1:11:48 PM

Quote :

"And I think Americans DO understand how insurance works. I think people DON’T understand why insurance companies are posting billions in profits and executive compensation, yet are dropping people who got sick through no known fault of their own, or won’t cover someone who recently lost their job, or left school, or changed jobs, or became self employed, or whatever."

"Billions in profits" doesn't mean anything if you don't look at the profit margin percentage itself, which is pretty low compared to most other industries. If a company makes 100 billion a year but spends 98 billion, they're make "billions in profit," but they're barely breaking even. It's bullshit if insurance drops you for getting sick, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's happening often. If you sign a deal with the insurance company that says you'll pay a certain premium, and they'll cover these particular procedures, but then they don't, that's breach of contract. You can sue and win, and it happens all the time. But, in the last few examples there, the insurance company is denying covering not because you lost your job, left school, changed jobs, or became self-employed, but because you're not worth the cost of covering, and they aren't just going to take a loss for no reason.

Quote :

"The fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of people aren’t going to suffer a catastrophic illness, but modern medicine for those who do is very expensive. This is fundamentally the reason health insurance exists. It’s practically a voluntary communist system… the bulk of us lose money on insurance premiums, the rest break even, and a tiny amount get a huge benefit."

It's the same as home insurance. You don't expect your house to burn down, but you understand that if it did, the financial consequences would be devastating.

Quote :

"You’re buying into the insurance companies crocodile tears that they will buckle under this pressure, but this won’t happen. I also don’t think that the few people who need catastrophic coverage is going to outweigh the $750/year from the people who take the penalty or the X$/year from people who get coverage under the new regs."

How won't it happen? They'll either jack up premiums or go bankrupt. Those are the only two options. They aren't the U.S government, so they can't just dream up money and make it appear. If this bill actually passes, I will drop my coverage and pay the penalty. Why? Because I never go to the doctor and there's a good chance I won't need to. I'll more than likely save a lot of money. I would encourage many other healthy individuals on this forum to do the same. It would be the rational thing to do, so if you think tons of people won't take advantage of the system that way, you don't know how far people will go to save a buck.

Quote :

""But, it is an issue Beulah. It is an issue ...""

We could remove the subsidy and allow people to purchase private plans without paying taxes on it. Problem solved. What's wrong with that solution?

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 1:22:34 PM

I forgot to mention:

gloat gloat gloat

12/24/2009 1:37:08 PM

Quote :

""Billions in profits" doesn't mean anything if you don't look at the profit margin percentage itself, which is pretty low compared to most other industries. If a company makes 100 billion a year but spends 98 billion, they're make "billions in profit," but they're barely breaking even."

Having been on the inside, you have to take profit margin numbers with a grain of salt from companies.

You can’t merely look at the percentage too, when you’re talking about billions of dollars (because the value of money isn’t “linear”). BUt, 2 billion dollars can pay for ~8000 cancer treatments, ~16,000 heart surgeries, ~50,000 back surgeries, or several million eczema treatments.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making-too-much-money/

Quote :

"But, in the last few examples there, the insurance company is denying covering not because you lost your job, left school, changed jobs, or became self-employed, but because you're not worth the cost of covering, and they aren't just going to take a loss for no reason. "

which is where the issues lie. You can go 5 years in college with coverage from your parents, you lose that coverage for a month while you look for a job, and even if you’re with the same insurance company, and if you get sick in that month, the insurance company won’t pick you up for coverage, even if you are going with the same company. How is this fair in any way? Clearly the system in this case is biassed towards the insurance company’s profits, instead of the patient’s health.

Quote :

"If this bill actually passes, I will drop my coverage and pay the penalty. Why? Because I never go to the doctor and there's a good chance I won't need to. I'll more than likely save a lot of money."

It would be foolish for me personally to do this, and probably almost anyone with employer-provided, pre-tax healthcare, which is the MAJORITY of people. But knock yourself out.

also…

Quote :

"Under both bills, most Americans would be required to have coverage or pay a penalty. Some would be exempted from the requirement, called an individual mandate, due to financial hardship or religious reasons. Under the House bill, you would have to have coverage by 2013 or pay up to 2.5 percent of your income; the penalty couldn't exceed the average cost of a plan sold in the exchanges. The Senate version would take effect in 2014. The penalty for not having coverage would be $95 in 2014 or 0.5 percent of an individual's income, whichever is higher. The penalty would rise in 2016 to $750, or 2 percent of income, up to the cost of the cheapest health plan. "

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/December/24/consumers-guide-to-health-reform-update.aspx

the $750 is the bare minimum in 2016, you could easily be higher than that.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 1:47:34 PM

Quote :

"religious reasons"

I think I might make my own religion. The only dogma is that I don't have to pay Social Security or this new penalty.

12/24/2009 2:13:07 PM

so whats in the bill?

social abortion?

12/24/2009 2:17:52 PM

Quote :

"No, because not all of those people fit the crocodile tear version of things you painted. In addition, many of those people already qualify for gov't assistance. And that's not even counting the fact that that number includes illegal aliens."

That number excludes government assistance, like medicaid, since medicaid is insurance coverage.

And while it's true that "not all of those people fit the crocodile tear version," but how many do? You seem to be under the assumption that it's only a few thousand people, but you and I both know that it's bullshit.

Quote :

"How about you answer my questions. I see that you didn't even try to refute the point I was getting at. The example was absurd for a reason."

Ok, I'll bite.

Quote :

"How do you figure? How is it bullshit that you can't come up to someone and say "hey, I'll give you 100 bux to pay for my million dollar condition. oh, and you have to take the deal"?"

I didn't answer it because it was already answered for you, but I'll post it for you to read:

Quote :

"I think you may be the one that doesn't know how insurance works. They are always paying out to a small percentage of the pool. The others pay in just in case they might ever need the services. Profit is the difference between the money coming in from those not sick and what goes out for healthcare cost. I realize that profit can be maximized by not paying out, but for it to be fair it has to start with a random population. If you can skew the population so that you have only people you don't have to pay out to, that's not insurance, that's a scam."

Quote :

"How? what do you think the "crux" of the issue is? That people don't have insurance? If you think that is it, then you are mistaken."

I already told you what the crux of the issue is.

Quote :

"Bullshit. How about Congress passes a law that says you have to give me a blow job every day or pay me 100 bux every day. Is that ok? the government isn't "FORCING" you to give me a blow job, right? Come on."

And I guess I'll answer this dumb question. Your hypothetical situation isn't realistic because elected officials rely on getting re-elected. Something like that wouldn't bode well for them.

Now you get to answer my questions, the ones you avoided last time.

Quote :

"So what do you propose that people who have pre-existing conditions do? Fucking die? You are aware that when you leave school, you'll come off your parents insurance, right? What are diabetics supposed to do when they come off their parents insurance? Hope they get a nice union job or work for a big company that has a large group plan? It doesn't always fucking work out that way. But what the fuck do you care about?"

Quote :

"I can agree with this. I've practically said so. But that's not what YOU said was the crux of the issue. You said the crux was that lots of people were uninsured."

You forgot to quote the rest, which went on to say:

Quote :

"It's not necessarily the fact that insurance pays for the majority of healthcare in the US. We don't have to get rid of private insurance to make insurance more affordable."

Whereas you claimed it to be,

Quote :

"That insurance is what pays for the majority of healthcare is the problem."

Which is NOT what I said.

Additionally, what you were quoting was a paraphrase of what I had early said, which further expanded to:

Quote :

"The crux of the issue is people who want to get insurance are unable to, either because it's too expensive and their employer doesn't offer a group plan (which is common in small businesses, especially as plans keep getting more and more expensive), or the companies who do offer group plans are having to keep raise the premiums for their employees because the companies are taking too big a hit. Also, people who have pre-existing conditions are finding themselves laid off, and after having their severance package run out, they find themselves on unemployment, unable to get insurance on their own, because insurance companies won't take the risk."

Quote :

"Btw, there is something in the Constitution that says whether a tax can be unconstitutional. Of course, it was amended, but still. "

BTW, that was in regards to the Federal Government being unable to tax people without apportioning the money to the rest of the states based on population. An amendment (I forget which one) later got rid of that in the 1910s. I don't see where that's relevant here.

Quote :

"How is it not analogous? if you have cancer and roll up to health insurance company, how is that different than if you have a house fire and roll up to a homeowners insurance company? They are the same thing. How about YOU try again."

I already explained how it's not analogous, but I'll explain it in terms that YOU can understand.

If you get sick and you have health insurance, you're covered. Right? But what happens if you lose that coverage, like if you lose your job? What do you do then when you can't get covered? That IS NOT analogous to your example, and yet it's a very real issue. Your example only covers the case if someone refused to get insurance and got it after the fact. But if you've been reading what I've been saying, I haven't even been using that example as a reason to support allowing people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage.

I'll repeat this again. With the majority of people with health insurance having their insurance connected to their job, losing their job and insurance is a big issue. Is that not a big issue? Things like severance packages, which are usually around 1 to 3 months, definitely help the issue. But if you're unemployed for a prolonged amount of time, eventually you'll want coverage for yourself. What do you do if you had a pre-existing condition before you were dropped by your companies insurance that WAS previously covered? If you're telling me that this isn't an issue, one that you, or ANYONE else here can find themselves in very easily, then you're lying to yourself. Because it is an issue. But all you've been trying to do is minimize the importance of such an issue.

Quote :

"It's the same as home insurance. You don't expect your house to burn down, but you understand that if it did, the financial consequences would be devastating."

You, read above. Your example is only applicable to one type of situation, but not to the situation in which you have a condition that was covered by your employer's health insurance, but then you find yourself unemployed, unable to get coverage for yourself because you have a pre-existing condition that was previously covered.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/24/2009 3:51:14 PM