More doublespeak and outrage from UHC opposition

[GuitarDaddy]

When the proposed senate bill includes a strong mandate for health insurance and is inforced by tax penalties they scream "The poor people that can't afford insurance will go broke and be thrown in jail! wah! wah!"

But when the mandate is weakened and the penalties reduced or removed for lower incomes they scream "The poor won't be covered and the insurance companies will go broke because they won't get the revenue! wah! wah!

New gripes about healthcare - WSJ

I guess nothing will make these crybabies happy

*edited to remove GOP from title*
although we all know where UHC opposition is coming from, and who is supported by the insurance lobby and the WSJ

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
When the proposed senate bill includes a strong mandate for health insurance and is inforced by tax penalties they scream "The poor people that can't afford insurance will go broke and be thrown in jail! wah! wah!"

But when the mandate is weakened and the penalties reduced or removed for lower incomes they scream "The poor won't be covered and the insurance companies will go broke because they won't get the revenue! wah! wah!

New gripes about healthcare - WSJ

I guess nothing will make these crybabies happy

404 - GOP not found.

 

[ElFenix]

completely misleading thread title

 

[blackangst1]

Yeah GOP not found. What I did find was int he first line of the article: Hospitals and insurance companies are pushing back against changes to the latest Senate health-care bill that ease the penalties for Americans who don't carry health insurance.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah GOP not found. What I did find was int he first line of the article: Hospitals and insurance companies are pushing back against changes to the latest Senate health-care bill that ease the penalties for Americans who don't carry health insurance.

With a penalty this low, whats to stop me from just paying the tax/fine/penalty/whatever each year until I get sick. Then I can buy insurance, have the company pay for everything, and leave the insurance pool once I'm healthy again.

If you don't think this won't happen, study whats wrong with MAs system. The penalty should be near the cost of a yearly insurance plan. It has to be significant, or it's not even worth having.

 

[nixium]

OK, can someone simplify this for me? Bearing in mind that I haven't really followed the healthcare proposals so far -

The two core problems with health care (the way I see it) are:

1. Costs are about 10 times higher than other developed countries.

2. Insurance companies are for-profit, and will do their best to deny costly care, since their primary responsibility is to their shareholders.

Shouldn't health care solutions, therefore, fall into one of these two categories:

-> Everyone pays for their healthcare, using insurance for catastrophic situations; or;

-> UHC.

So why is the Government solving the wrong problem? Instead of moving away from the bloated, inefficient insurance based system, mandatory coverage is proposed (with penalties for those not covered! who in their right mind would refuse health insurance if they could afford it, given the insane costs that they might face otherwise?)

Secondly, by requiring coverage of everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, etc, the Government is bludgeoning it's way through problem #2 stated above, instead of addressing the fundamental incompatibility between the decision making process of an ailing patient and a for-profit company.

My views are based on an incomplete understanding of the scenario, but I'm really wondering if this is all a secret plan to completely break the back of the entire system so we can start from scratch.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: nixium
OK, can someone simplify this for me? Bearing in mind that I haven't really followed the healthcare proposals so far -

The two core problems with health care (the way I see it) are:

1. Costs are about 10 times higher than other developed countries.

2. Insurance companies are for-profit, and will do their best to deny costly care, since their primary responsibility is to their shareholders.

Shouldn't health care solutions, therefore, fall into one of these two categories:

-> Everyone pays for their healthcare, using insurance for catastrophic situations; or;

-> UHC.

So why is the Government solving the wrong problem? Instead of moving away from the bloated, inefficient insurance based system, mandatory coverage is proposed (with penalties for those not covered! who in their right mind would refuse health insurance if they could afford it, given the insane costs that they might face otherwise?)

Secondly, by requiring coverage of everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, etc, the Government is bludgeoning it's way through problem #2 stated above, instead of addressing the fundamental incompatibility between the decision making process of an ailing patient and a for-profit company.

My views are based on an incomplete understanding of the scenario, but I'm really wondering if this is all a secret plan to completely break the back of the entire system so we can start from scratch.

You've accurately stated the core problem (though U.S. insurance costs aren't 10 times as high, although "significantly higher" would be fair).

Unfortunately, in the U.S. we also have a large divide on the role of government versus the role of business. So there's no consensus yet to "move away" from a private-insurance-based system.

The public option WOULD have been a move in that direction, but the insurance industry and conservative groups (correctly) identified that provision in original health care proposal as the first nail in the coffin of private health insurance.

So were sort of stuck. I believe SOME sort of health care legislation will be passed, but it won't solve the central issue you've identified. So we'll muddle forward for a few more years until things get so horrible that conservative resistance to a single-payer system crumbles.

 

[bamacre]

Wasn't the main difference between Obama's and Hillary's health care plans a mandate in Hillary's? And this mandate was something Obama was against? Something he said was a gift to the health insurance companies?

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Wasn't the main difference between Obama's and Hillary's health care plans a mandate in Hillary's? And this mandate was something Obama was against? Something he said was a gift to the health insurance companies?

Thanks for bringing this up! I knew something was irking me about this "mandate" idea. I believe you're right.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah GOP not found. What I did find was int he first line of the article: Hospitals and insurance companies are pushing back against changes to the latest Senate health-care bill that ease the penalties for Americans who don't carry health insurance.

With a penalty this low, whats to stop me from just paying the tax/fine/penalty/whatever each year until I get sick. Then I can buy insurance, have the company pay for everything, and leave the insurance pool once I'm healthy again.

If you don't think this won't happen, study whats wrong with MAs system. The penalty should be near the cost of a yearly insurance plan. It has to be significant, or it's not even worth having.

That's why the entire system should dump insurance totally. If it's mandated for-profit insurance with serious penalties and no out a lot of people are going to fight it to the end...some with violence if necessary. If you want compromise, back a public option. If you insist on mandated private insurance, you better grab a weapon because the draft board will be calling you soon to deal with the revolution.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: nixium

Originally posted by: bamacre
Wasn't the main difference between Obama's and Hillary's health care plans a mandate in Hillary's? And this mandate was something Obama was against? Something he said was a gift to the health insurance companies?

Thanks for bringing this up! I knew something was irking me about this "mandate" idea. I believe you're right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhYQ-GQyEB0

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah GOP not found. What I did find was int he first line of the article: Hospitals and insurance companies are pushing back against changes to the latest Senate health-care bill that ease the penalties for Americans who don't carry health insurance.

With a penalty this low, whats to stop me from just paying the tax/fine/penalty/whatever each year until I get sick. Then I can buy insurance, have the company pay for everything, and leave the insurance pool once I'm healthy again.

If you don't think this won't happen, study whats wrong with MAs system. The penalty should be near the cost of a yearly insurance plan. It has to be significant, or it's not even worth having.

Sounds reasonable to me

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is cool. If your situation is such that you can't afford insurance but fall outside whatever bracket then the Feds penalize you. Awesome!

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
This is cool. If your situation is such that you can't afford insurance but fall outside whatever bracket then the Feds penalize you. Awesome!

That's what happens when legislators fall for the fallacy of equating insurance with coverage and coverage with care. People can't afford insurance, the country can't afford to subsidize them (40% of the Swiss and over 60% of the Dutch are subsidized) so we'll exempt them from having to pay...which means that they will still be without coverage.

We don't need to extend the broken, private insurance model. We need a different model for financing and delivering health care in this country.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
This is cool. If your situation is such that you can't afford insurance but fall outside whatever bracket then the Feds penalize you. Awesome!

That's what happens when legislators fall for the fallacy of equating insurance with coverage and coverage with care. People can't afford insurance, the country can't afford to subsidize them (40% of the Swiss and over 60% of the Dutch are subsidized) so we'll exempt them from having to pay...which means that they will still be without coverage.

We don't need to extend the broken, private insurance model. We need a different model for financing and delivering health care in this country.

I normally dont agree with you on the health care issue, but this post is spot on :thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
When the proposed senate bill includes a strong mandate for health insurance and is inforced by tax penalties they scream "The poor people that can't afford insurance will go broke and be thrown in jail! wah! wah!"

But when the mandate is weakened and the penalties reduced or removed for lower incomes they scream "The poor won't be covered and the insurance companies will go broke because they won't get the revenue! wah! wah!

New gripes about healthcare - WSJ

I guess nothing will make these crybabies happy

*edited to remove GOP from title*
although we all know where UHC opposition is coming from, and who is supported by the insurance lobby and the WSJ

I don't see the "double speak".

Your post seems like you think opposition to UHC/HC Reform is monolithic. It's nothing of the sort. All we're seeing here is competing (and opposed) interests fighting over provisions.

I.e. in this case the insurance companies and hosptials don't wanna give the government the savings they've promised unless the government delivers to them the millions of new (business) clients they want.

This underscores my initial complaints about UHC - gee how nice for the insurance companies, Uncle Sam is gonna make everyone buy their product so they can make even more money. What's next - we all are forced to buy [insert product] so those companies can make even more money and be happy too?

Jeebus read the article - these companies are concerned young people who do NOT usually use HC will not buy insurance thus subsidizing the others. They want young healthy people who don't HI to be forced to buy it so it's more affordable for others who do need it.

This is a clusterfvck of epic proportions. Nothing but cost-shifting, and that's not a solution.

We're in a bad economic time, and we wanna hit people with penalties or HI they don't need/want/can afford? Great, we've got about $750 billion of ARMs coming up for re-adjustment soon. Where are we gonna get the bailout money for the next wave of forclosures? When all that money is diverted into the HC/HI industry are all the other industry segments gonna be slammed? Who's got money for retail goods, tourism, dining out, new appliances, new clothes, new cars, new homes etc?

Bad ideas at a 'ggod time' are an inconvienence or even a hardship, but bad ideas at a bad time are a disaster. This is the latter.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As we've discussed before Athena I believe that the government wants to replace a health care system they say is broken with another broken one that they control. This isn't about providing quality health care. It's about power. That's why bringing in other countries plans is pointless. They are more principled than our detestible lot

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
As we've discussed before Athena I believe that the government wants to replace a health care system they say is broken with another broken one that they control. This isn't about providing quality health care. It's about power. That's why bringing in other countries plans is pointless. They are more principled than our detestible lot

so nothing's going to change then.

Well, I guess I'm moving to Canada. So long, suckers!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obama and Congress could have funded a comprehensive study done by health care professionals, consumer advocates, and financial experts in advance of trying to legislate a program. Making it public and taking it out of partisan politics would have given us an accurate assesment of our situation and provided answers with patient care, provider needs, and fiscal responsibility at the forefront instead of political glory and gain. What do we have? Some plan that the partisans don't want us to see because we aren't as smart as they are.

Of the two, which sounds like it has the best interests of the citizen in mind?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Obama and Congress could have funded a comprehensive study done by health care professionals, consumer advocates, and financial experts in advance of trying to legislate a program.

Yeah, but they probably wouldn't have liked their recommendations.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: wetech

404 - GOP not found.

OP's source is the Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

404 error not found.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Obama and Congress could have funded a comprehensive study done by health care professionals, consumer advocates, and financial experts in advance of trying to legislate a program. Making it public and taking it out of partisan politics would have given us an accurate assesment of our situation and provided answers with patient care, provider needs, and fiscal responsibility at the forefront instead of political glory and gain. What do we have? Some plan that the partisans don't want us to see because we aren't as smart as they are.

Of the two, which sounds like it has the best interests of the citizen in mind?

obama kept defering to congress on everything, not a good idea

 

[dmcowen674]

As much as they try and remove "GOP" on this board as the stumbling block for UHC, real news (not Fox fake shit), real Polls and history will show the Republicans as they really are.

10-8-09 Voters Back Obama Over Republicans on Health Care, Poll Finds

Months of Republican attacks on President Barack Obama?s health-care proposals appear to have hurt the party, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

The survey found 64 percent of voters disapproving of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their jobs, with 25 percent approving. Also, 53 percent had an unfavorable opinion of the party in general, while 25 percent rated it favorably.

?President Barack Obama?s approval rating has held at 50 percent over the past two months of high-intensity debate on health care and other issues,? said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Hamden, Connecticut-based university?s polling institute. ?And while the spotlight is on the president, Republicans are taking a public-opinion pounding.?

Public Option

The poll found voters support a government-run plan to compete with private insurers 61 percent to 34 percent.


Obama has said he won?t sign a health-care bill if it is projected to add to the federal budget deficit. In the poll, 71 percent said they expect any measure that emerges from Congress would increase the deficit, while 19 percent said they believe it wouldn?t.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated yesterday that the Senate Finance Committee?s version of health- care legislation would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, yeh, of course. Repubs' idea of healthcare reform is to make the insurance industry's gravy bowl full to overflowing. Anything promoting that is good, anything limiting it is bad. Whatever they can get.

Mkay?

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wetech

404 - GOP not found.

OP's source is the Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

404 error not found.

it's a news article about hospitals and insurance companie complaining about changes to the bill, not an opinion piece.

If the same article appeared in the NYT, would you be saying that Democrats are complaining about the bill?