The Public Option...

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Yeah wanting to help millions of americans instead of kill hundreds of thousands people make me a cry baby, and you a shill.

There you go with unrelated policy again.

Budgeting is related. If we could afford one thing, we could afford the other thing. Especially if this one actually HELPS people. Duh.

Still waiting for a response-
"Profits at 10 of the country?s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets."

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05...-create-near-monopoly/



Take a look at a recent report "Insuring Health or Ensuring Profit?; A look at the Financial Gains of Washington's Health Insurers." According to the report, the big three carriers in Washington, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. Their cash surplus went from $833 million in 2002 to $2.2 billion (with a "B") in 2006. Interestingly enough they did it while covering less people. Over 2.37 million people were covered by the three in 2002 compared to 1.9 million in 2006.

http://vancouver.injuryboard.c...r.aspx?googleid=230780



Potter, who spent 15 years at CIGNA, said health plans have a financial incentive to cancel the policies of their most costly members and have implemented strategies to do so. ?They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy,? he testified. And canceling policies for even a small number of such members can have ?a big effect? on the bottom line, he added. ?Where is the logic and the humanity of having pre-existing conditions not covered in our society?? Potter asked. He noted that his testimony wasn?t aimed at CIGNA specifically, but rather at an industry that he said is ?taking this country in the wrong direction.?

http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd070909.html

""They confuse their customers and dump the sick ? all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," said Wendell Potter, who retired as CIGNA's vice president of corporate communications last year. He spent nearly 15 years at the company and four years at Humana."

"Potter, for instance, recalled a trip on a corporate jet from Philadelphia, where CIGNA is headquartered, to Connecticut, where the company's health insurance business is based in Bloomfield. During the flight, he was served lunch on gold-rimmed china with a gold-plated knife and fork.

"I realized for the first time that someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to travel in such luxury," he said on his blog."

"He condemned insurers' efforts to get rid of unprofitable customers, sell policies that can mislead consumers and offer very limited coverage, and pay out as small a portion of premiums as possible for claims in order to boost profits and please Wall Street."

"Potter described in written testimony how insurers use "purging" ? unrealistic rate increases ? to drive off less profitable employers. Citing a USA Today report, he recalled how CIGNA boosted rates in 2006 for the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust so much that for some family plans, premiums would have topped $44,000 a year."

"CIGNA, responding to Potter's testimony, said Wednesday, "Although we respect that there are different opinions on the solutions, we strongly disagree with the suggestion that, motivated by profits, the insurance industry has deliberately attempted to confuse or unfairly treat covered individuals.""

http://www.courant.com/busines...tjun25,0,4107201.story

Your argument is one a 3 year old would think up. It would be like me saying we need to increase spending on bridges because SS's budget is 600 billion a year. WTF does SS have to do with bridges? WTF does fighting a war have to do with Healthcare reform? The answer is nothing unless you want to appeal to emotion about unrelated items.

I am pretty sure anybody doing the legwork to put together this major reform isnt studying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still waiting for a response to the data.

And yes, budgeting is the "issue" for you. My argument is simple, yes, but completely logical. If we could pay for ineffective and bloated programs(military), than an important one that actually directly helps millions of our citizens should not be a problem.

The wars and military arguement you seem to be presenting is a year old. That's what Genx is getting at here. Our fiscal situation as a nation has changed dramatically since then. If you want to use that arguement now, you have to tell Obama that stuff like his troop surge in Afghanistan needs to take a backseat to healthcare reform.

You can't blame this stuff on Bush like it's 2007 or 2008 anymore and expect to get anywhere. The situation is what it is, and I think both you and I can agree that, at this point, it doesn't make any difference who's responsible for getting us here. What matters is who can get us out and how it can be done efficiently.

To that end, the only way we're going to be able to get there is to be aware of and discuss the actual proposals and sort through the FUD coming from both sides.

To divert back to my OP, does it seem like the bill is more or less taking the states' insurance commissioner's powers and re-allocating them to a federal commission? Or, is this reaching beyond that?

You mean because we bailed out a bunch of greedy profit hungry corporations, so therefore, we must allopw the greedy profit hungry insurers that literally kill people for profit, to continue?

1 Trillion dollars is still 1 trillion dollars. Our deficit went up 5 trillion in the past 8 years with no crisis to blame it on. It certainly could afford it now too, if it helps our people.

Cut the bloated and useless military spending in half and it'll pay for itself in 4 years. Money is not the issue here, as much as the all of a sudden "fiscal conservatives" would like to claim.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Still waiting for a response to the data.

And yes, budgeting is the "issue" for you. My argument is simple, yes, but completely logical. If we could pay for ineffective and bloated programs(military), than an important one that actually directly helps millions of our citizens should not be a problem.

What data? Those are articles about dropping people due to costing too much. How does that tie at all into this public plan not addressing rising costs? You wont see me deny private insurance can drop people. What I am laughing at with you is you think the profit motive is the true problem. With Obama's plan you will take away the profit motive and the costs will continue to rise. Earth to shadow, earth to shadow.

Hah.. turning 11 million in profits into 243 million in 5 years is NOT rising costs.

Go back and read them this time.

243 million in a 2 trillion dollar market. Try again to tell us how that really affects costs? And you are dodging the issue on Obamas public plan being plagued with rising costs without the profit motive. Again, earth to shadow.

If your profit can go from 11 million and increase 10x in 5 years, expenses are not the problem.

Brain and heart to shill.

P.S. "Those are articles about dropping people due to costing too much. " Read it for real this time. You never read them.

""Potter described in written testimony how insurers use "purging" ? unrealistic rate increases ? to drive off less profitable employers. Citing a USA Today report, he recalled how CIGNA boosted rates in 2006 for the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust so much that for some family plans, premiums would have topped $44,000 a year."

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Where is Republican counter proposal? Even ignoring the fact that they had 14 years to propose it, and 6 years of control to pass it, where is it now?
We keep hearing how they want reforms, just not Democrat's reforms, but they haven't proposed anything or fought for any reforms.

FFS try google.

Link to a 14-Page Outline of The Patients' Choice Act of 2009 (their proposed legislation released a couple of months ago taht will never see the light of day)

I haven't bothered reading it. It'll never get anywhere.

Otherwise if you've been following the news you'd be aware that in the Senate the Repubs in the committee actually do have input (unlike in the House). As to the specifics of what they (Repubs) are pushing no one knows other than them knows because the MSM isn't reporting on it. However, I suspect they are responsible for the on-again, off-again taxing of employer provide HI beyond a certain $ limit, for example.

Fern

Why isn't it Patient's choice act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006? Why are Republicans only interested in "reform" when they know their "reforms" won't be passed, and not when they have control and ability to pass it?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Where is Republican counter proposal? Even ignoring the fact that they had 14 years to propose it, and 6 years of control to pass it, where is it now?
We keep hearing how they want reforms, just not Democrat's reforms, but they haven't proposed anything or fought for any reforms.

FFS try google.

Link to a 14-Page Outline of The Patients' Choice Act of 2009 (their proposed legislation released a couple of months ago taht will never see the light of day)

I haven't bothered reading it. It'll never get anywhere.

Otherwise if you've been following the news you'd be aware that in the Senate the Repubs in the committee actually do have input (unlike in the House). As to the specifics of what they (Repubs) are pushing no one knows other than them knows because the MSM isn't reporting on it. However, I suspect they are responsible for the on-again, off-again taxing of employer provide HI beyond a certain $ limit, for example.

Fern

Why isn't it Patient's choice act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006? Why are Republicans only interested in "reform" when they know their "reforms" won't be passed, and not when they have control and ability to pass it?

What about 1994-2000? Hillary wanted reform.... for almost 20 years now the democrats have tried and republicans have resisted... they don't care and never will.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You mean because we bailed out a bunch of greedy profit hungry corporations, so therefore, we must allopw the greedy profit hungry insurers that literally kill people for profit, to continue?

I didn't say that. I'm trying to have a civil discourse with you this time around, believe it or not.

1 Trillion dollars is still 1 trillion dollars. Our deficit went up 5 trillion in the past 8 years with no crisis to blame it on. It certainly could afford it now too, if it helps our people.

We're in a recession, shadow. We had two crises in those 8 years. The first was the 9/11 bust, which was later propped back up by the housing / financial bubble, which burst in 2007. Now, we're in worse shape, and the deficit is increasing proportionally. Now, I'm not using that against you. I'm not telling you that healthcare reform can't happen because we don't have the money. I'm saying we need to find a way to do what we can with what we've got. If you want to cancel the bailout to have the money for healthcare reform, fine. But, the issue is that we're at a point where something has to give - from both sides.

Cut the bloated and useless military spending in half and it'll pay for itself in 4 years. Money is not the issue here, as much as the all of a sudden "fiscal conservatives" would like to claim.

I disagree, but I don't think it's a point worth arguing over right now.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You mean because we bailed out a bunch of greedy profit hungry corporations, so therefore, we must allopw the greedy profit hungry insurers that literally kill people for profit, to continue?

I didn't say that. I'm trying to have a civil discourse with you this time around, believe it or not.

1 Trillion dollars is still 1 trillion dollars. Our deficit went up 5 trillion in the past 8 years with no crisis to blame it on. It certainly could afford it now too, if it helps our people.

We're in a recession, shadow. We had two crises in those 8 years. The first was the 9/11 bust, which was later propped back up by the housing / financial bubble, which burst in 2007. Now, we're in worse shape, and the deficit is increasing proportionally. Now, I'm not using that against you. I'm not telling you that healthcare reform can't happen because we don't have the money. I'm saying we need to find a way to do what we can with what we've got. If you want to cancel the bailout to have the money for healthcare reform, fine. But, the issue is that we're at a point where something has to give - from both sides.

Cut the bloated and useless military spending in half and it'll pay for itself in 4 years. Money is not the issue here, as much as the all of a sudden "fiscal conservatives" would like to claim.

I disagree, but I don't think it's a point worth arguing over right now.

Your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Corruption and politics requires speed to get any change. I want change rather than nothing. Small steps.

Your way works in an ideal world. Not one where 14 years of republican rule has left us with no change, soaring insurance profits, and more screwed people than ever.

Delay to win is your strategy/

"Speed" is the tool of corruption and politics, not the method of combating either to achieve desirable change.

14 years of Repub rule? Jeebus man, you're irrational and uninformed - So GWB just served 3.5 terms (despite the well known Constitutional limits of 2), and the Repubs enjoyed super majorites during that period?

Taking anything over nothing is foolish. Even more so because we'll likely only get one shot at this.

You act as if the fear mongering has gotten to you. In spite of what they've have you believe we haven't been suffering any Ginormous health care crisis. Sure some people have been figting with HI companies over what's covered (that won't be changing under this UHC), some have gone bankrupt under insufficient HI plans (nor will that change), and health care costs have been rising faster than inflation (that won't be changing either - see recent CBO remarks). So what's the fvcking rush?

You say "small steps". This anything but.

There are good and obvious places to start; both sides (Dem & Repub) and all of us agree that costs need to be contained. Why not start with that?

Instead, 'costs' have used as fear mongering tool yet left unadressed in a push to get more people covered.

Having more pople covered is a good objective, but why not first work to control costs (since there is already agreement there), then work to make sure that coverage is actually worth a damn (solve the problems of fighting with HI companies over what is covered and the fact that many people bankrupted WERE covered under HI policies). Why rush to cover people under crappy plans and ignore the whole costs problem? Because Nancy & Obama want it on the resumes?

If health care costs are first controlled, it will be easier politically (and practically) to get universal coverage because HI will cost less in the first place etc. It seems obvious to me (shrug)

Fern

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Where is Republican counter proposal? Even ignoring the fact that they had 14 years to propose it, and 6 years of control to pass it, where is it now?
We keep hearing how they want reforms, just not Democrat's reforms, but they haven't proposed anything or fought for any reforms.

FFS try google.

Link to a 14-Page Outline of The Patients' Choice Act of 2009 (their proposed legislation released a couple of months ago taht will never see the light of day)

I haven't bothered reading it. It'll never get anywhere.

Otherwise if you've been following the news you'd be aware that in the Senate the Repubs in the committee actually do have input (unlike in the House). As to the specifics of what they (Repubs) are pushing no one knows other than them knows because the MSM isn't reporting on it. However, I suspect they are responsible for the on-again, off-again taxing of employer provide HI beyond a certain $ limit, for example.

Fern

Why isn't it Patient's choice act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006? Why are Republicans only interested in "reform" when they know their "reforms" won't be passed, and not when they have control and ability to pass it?

There is one good thing about their proposal, it eliminates pre-existing conditions.

The rest of their proposal stinks. It consists of about a $7,000/year "tax" increase on families of four. The same families they claim to be protecting. Of course this isn't a "tax" increase because the money will be going to corporations instead of the government.

This is the same thing McCain proposed during his presidential campaign. It stunk then, and it stinks now.

 

[shadow9d9]

Costs of healthcare are not the main problem. Denying and canceling overage is.

Congress controls our government. Republicans had complete control for 14 years.

All the republicans need to do is spend like crazies and then when it all falls apart, claim fiscal responsibility so the democrats can't get needed change done.. then the dems put things back together and the republicans get to spend again.

Great plan.

The plan includes not allowing pre-existing conditions and a government option to compete with the profit hunger killers.

I like it.



Meanwhile not a single person actually addressed any of the research I did about our the insurances currently screw us... Good job!

 

[imported_inspire]

If health care costs are first controlled, it will be easier politically (and practically) to get universal coverage because HI will cost less in the first place etc. It seems obvious to me (shrug) .

That seems like the best order to me. Execute reforms, then offer a public option. The main concern over the last few pages of replies is essentially pre-existing conditions. Maybe we should tackle how companies are able to use those first.

The mechanism to do this could be something like a Federal Health Commisioner, as the current bill describes, who has powers similar to those of state Insurance Commissioners. Or, better yet, a Federal Health board, such as one proposed by the Mayo Clinic.

To a degree, insurance is already regulated by government, so the path for reform is already there. The hurdle right now, is turning that from a state power into a federal power.

We may actually find that by introducing reforms that address the issues of pre-existing conditions and the disparity between profits and rates, that the accessibility of private insurance increases to a point where a public option is no longer necessary.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Where is Republican counter proposal? Even ignoring the fact that they had 14 years to propose it, and 6 years of control to pass it, where is it now?
We keep hearing how they want reforms, just not Democrat's reforms, but they haven't proposed anything or fought for any reforms.

FFS try google.

Link to a 14-Page Outline of The Patients' Choice Act of 2009 (their proposed legislation released a couple of months ago taht will never see the light of day)

I haven't bothered reading it. It'll never get anywhere.

Otherwise if you've been following the news you'd be aware that in the Senate the Repubs in the committee actually do have input (unlike in the House). As to the specifics of what they (Repubs) are pushing no one knows other than them knows because the MSM isn't reporting on it. However, I suspect they are responsible for the on-again, off-again taxing of employer provide HI beyond a certain $ limit, for example.

Fern

Why isn't it Patient's choice act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006? Why are Republicans only interested in "reform" when they know their "reforms" won't be passed, and not when they have control and ability to pass it?

There is one good thing about their proposal, it eliminates pre-existing conditions.

The rest of their proposal stinks. It consists of about a $7,000/year "tax" increase on families of four. The same families they claim to be protecting. Of course this isn't a "tax" increase because the money will be going to corporations instead of the government.

This is the same thing McCain proposed during his presidential campaign. It stunk then, and it stinks now.

How much does a family of four have to make to see it's taxes go up $7K/year under this proposal?

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Costs of healthcare are not the main problem. Denying and canceling overage is.

Congress controls our government. Republicans had complete control for 14 years.

All the republicans need to do is spend like crazies and then when it all falls apart, claim fiscal responsibility so the democrats can't get needed change done.. then the dems put things back together and the republicans get to spend again.

Great plan.

The plan includes not allowing pre-existing conditions and a government option to compete with the profit hunger killers.

I like it.



Meanwhile not a single person actually addressed any of the research I did about our the insurances currently screw us... Good job!

So, reform healthcare by addressing pre-existing condition clauses. I didn't address your research because I felt you made your point. I understand you're passionate about this, shadow, but I think you miss some decent discussion because you let some of the more confrontational guys around here get to you.

 

[Carmen813]

The problem is that it's not just enough to illegalize pre-existing conditions in a for-profit driven market. Allow me to explain...

I'm a cancer survivor. Right now, there is no "free market" for me. I either accept what my employer offers, or buy into a state run program. If pre-existing conditions were eliminated, I could buy into any private program. However, that wouldn't stop them from charging me a ridiculous amount of money so that I couldn't actually afford to enroll.

So the "easy" but liberatian displeasing solution is to mandate that everyone purchases coverage. This would increase the insurance pool enough so that lost profits could be made up for. However, the lower middle class would be hit with an invisible "tax" if they did not currently buy coverage. They would no longer be able to choose not to have coverage.

It's a complicated issue. Pre-existing conditions are a *major* problem. Perhaps a government run program that only allowed individuals will pre-existing conditions access would be ideal, but they would need to strictly regulate what could qualify as a "pre-existing" condition to prevent industry from excluding people over minor conditions, like acne.

 

[sandorski]

Funny thing is that in a couple years the debate will be over and only the very few Ideologues will have anything against it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Why isn't it Patient's choice act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006?

I'm not googling for you any more on this subject.

There may have been bills proposed during those years. Bills are proposed all the time.

However, I do believe Congress and the WH were a little pre-occupied with other matters after 911.

Beside, Repubs have never had super majorities such that they could do without Dem support. And you were'nt getting a damn thing passed on UHC without Kennedy's support during that time. That's similar to how Clinton couldn't get it passed when had majorities. It was the powerful Dem Congress bosses that killed HillaryCare.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Why isn't it Patient's choice act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006?

I'm not googling for you any more on this subject.

There may have been bills proposed during those years. Bills are proposed all the time.

However, I do believe Congress and the WH were a little pre-occupied with other matters after 911.

Beside, Repubs have never had super majorities such that they could do without Dem support. And you were'nt getting a damn thing passed on UHC without Kennedy's support during that time. That's similar to how Clinton couldn't get it passed when had majorities. It was the powerful Dem Congress bosses that killed HillaryCare.

Fern

Agh, I forgot, 9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The problem is that it's not just enough to illegalize pre-existing conditions in a for-profit driven market. Allow me to explain...

I'm a cancer survivor. Right now, there is no "free market" for me. I either accept what my employer offers, or buy into a state run program. If pre-existing conditions were eliminated, I could buy into any private program. However, that wouldn't stop them from charging me a ridiculous amount of money so that I couldn't actually afford to enroll.

So the "easy" but liberatian displeasing solution is to mandate that everyone purchases coverage. This would increase the insurance pool enough so that lost profits could be made up for. However, the lower middle class would be hit with an invisible "tax" if they did not currently buy coverage. They would no longer be able to choose not to have coverage.

It's a complicated issue. Pre-existing conditions are a *major* problem. Perhaps a government run program that only allowed individuals will pre-existing conditions access would be ideal, but they would need to strictly regulate what could qualify as a "pre-existing" condition to prevent industry from excluding people over minor conditions, like acne.

That's not a bad idea. I think most folks would even be okay with a public option that's similar to what the government does for flood insurance - they're an insurer of last resort. If no one else will insure you for a resonable price, then the public option is available, but at a reasonable cost. A windfall tax could help fund the program.

Also, if there were some sort of regulation like rate-control, that would work similar to rent-control in some cities, which prevented your rates from adjusting upwards more than a fixed percentage, that would help a lot of people. I can imagine that along with a regulation that prohibits any strictly defined pre-existing conditions (not acne) discovered more than maybe a year after the policy goes into effect would help. This would increase accessibility, and would make it more viable for healthy individuals to get insurance and stay covered affordably. Then, when someone develops cancer, they don't have to worry about getting coverage because they'd already have it.

I think combining those two paragraphs would get us pretty close to a nice compromise, eh?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Shh...it's supposed to be a secret! Despite all of the lies being spouted by Obama, when people start reading the bill, they come across monstrosities like this.

It is very real, and you should be very afraid.

LOL @ you and your lies and secrets and general FUD. If you think what's being kicked around is anything close to what will be put to vote you're crazy.

I lived through 2000-2008 under what I (and many) consider to be the worst president in modern history. I think I'll live through your 'monstrosities' under Obama.

That's a very interesting perspective. Can you name one specific, direct legislation that Bush signed, or executive order that he issued, that impacted you directly?

The only one I can think of are tax cuts. I'm open for others...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Costs of healthcare are not the main problem. Denying and canceling overage is.

Congress controls our government. Republicans had complete control for 14 years.

All the republicans need to do is spend like crazies and then when it all falls apart, claim fiscal responsibility so the democrats can't get needed change done.. then the dems put things back together and the republicans get to spend again.

Great plan.

The plan includes not allowing pre-existing conditions and a government option to compete with the profit hunger killers.

I like it.



Meanwhile not a single person actually addressed any of the research I did about our the insurances currently screw us... Good job!

So, reform healthcare by addressing pre-existing condition clauses. I didn't address your research because I felt you made your point. I understand you're passionate about this, shadow, but I think you miss some decent discussion because you let some of the more confrontational guys around here get to you.

It is hard for it not to. My wife, a 26 year old who weighs 130 pounds at 5'7... who jogs regularly and is the healthiest eater around, was denied by every insurer in the state because she took a pill for one month to get pregnant. She was flagged with a nonsensical "syndrome" which she requires nothing for, and only was diagnosed because she wanted to have a child.

You have people that just say nonsense like "exercise and eat right". Then you have the people who didn't mind wars, a bloated defense, and an added 5 trillion to the deficit with no benefit to a single american except corporate buddies.. but balk at helping 50+ million americans. All of a sudden money is important!

In an ideal environment, we could have real discussion. When health insurance companies have a 135+ million dollar campaign against any reform and politicians from 50 states being corrupted and bought out, speed is a necessity.

Additionally, we have campaigns based on lies being advertised to sour the american public- where someone is claiming they had a brain tumor, which magically became brain cancer on fox news... In reality it was a benign cyst that she decided to spend $100,000 and flew to america to remove.

The republicans have spent 14 years of power with on inclination to change this profit based system and not a single person here was willing to argue with the fact that insurances give their ceos up to $24 million each, have done 10x their profits in 5 years while covering less people, and purposely deny and cancel insurance with no one to turn to(monopoly)...

Michael Steele has the nerve to go out and say he wants health to be between your doctor and you, instead of bureucrats, but right now it is the insurer that decides EVERYTHING with their bottom line being foremost!

If we wait, no change will EVER come, and all the "well, we could make it better, don't rush it!" will mysteriously disappear and americans will continue to suffer another 20 years(since the last uhc push).

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Why isn't it Patient's choice act of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006?

I'm not googling for you any more on this subject.

There may have been bills proposed during those years. Bills are proposed all the time.

However, I do believe Congress and the WH were a little pre-occupied with other matters after 911.

Beside, Repubs have never had super majorities such that they could do without Dem support. And you were'nt getting a damn thing passed on UHC without Kennedy's support during that time. That's similar to how Clinton couldn't get it passed when had majorities. It was the powerful Dem Congress bosses that killed HillaryCare.

Fern

Did you see any bills from 1994-2001?

9/11? HAHAHAHA. So, because 3,000 people died, and they authorized 2 knee-jerk wars to pad their corporate buiddies' wallets, they couldn't do anything else for the next 4 years? That is the most ingenuous bullsh*t excuse I have ever heard.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Shh...it's supposed to be a secret! Despite all of the lies being spouted by Obama, when people start reading the bill, they come across monstrosities like this.

It is very real, and you should be very afraid.

LOL @ you and your lies and secrets and general FUD. If you think what's being kicked around is anything close to what will be put to vote you're crazy.

I lived through 2000-2008 under what I (and many) consider to be the worst president in modern history. I think I'll live through your 'monstrosities' under Obama.

That's a very interesting perspective. Can you name one specific, direct legislation that Bush signed, or executive order that he issued, that impacted you directly?

The only one I can think of are tax cuts. I'm open for others...

Don't derail, take that to another thread.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Costs of healthcare are not the main problem. Denying and canceling overage is.

Nope. Cost is the main problem. It is sprecisely because of costs that denial and cancellation of coverage happens.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Congress controls our government. Republicans had complete control for 14 years.

Nope. Congress does not control our control our government. Except is extremely rare cases Congress needs the WH to work with them. Over turning a presidential veto is damn rare.

Repubs have NOT been in power 14 years

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
All the republicans need to do is spend like crazies and then when it all falls apart, claim fiscal responsibility so the democrats can't get needed change done.. then the dems put things back together and the republicans get to spend again.

Great plan.

:roll:

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The plan includes not allowing pre-existing conditions and a government option to compete with the profit hunger killers.

I like it.

Meanwhile not a single person actually addressed any of the research I did about our the insurances currently screw us... Good job!

What's to address? I've been calling for insurance reform since last year or so when discussion of UHC started.

But I'll say this - people with pre-existing coverage are looking for others to subsidize their health care costs/insurance. There's no way around it. You can't 'insure' a pre-existing condition no more than after having an automobile accident you can go get insurance on those repair costs. The events happened, the costs are known, it ain't insurance it's reimbursement.

And as far as pre-existing conditions, the best place to start is sigificant cost reduction in the treatments that are known to be required. Instead of any effort at that we're busing demonizing HI companies (how many we gonna get around to demonizing in Obama first year? So far it's been Wall Street bankers, home mortgage companies, auto makers, all CEO's and execs, oil companies, power (electric) companies etc. It's getting ridiculous IMO).

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Costs of healthcare are not the main problem. Denying and canceling overage is.

Nope. Cost is the main problem. It is sprecisely because of costs that denial and cancellation of coverage happens.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Congress controls our government. Republicans had complete control for 14 years.

Nope. Congress does not control our control our government. Except is extremely rare cases Congress needs the WH to work with them. Over turning a presidential veto is damn rare.

Repubs have NOT been in power 14 years

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
All the republicans need to do is spend like crazies and then when it all falls apart, claim fiscal responsibility so the democrats can't get needed change done.. then the dems put things back together and the republicans get to spend again.

Great plan.

:roll:

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The plan includes not allowing pre-existing conditions and a government option to compete with the profit hunger killers.

I like it.

Meanwhile not a single person actually addressed any of the research I did about our the insurances currently screw us... Good job!

What's to address? I've been calling for insurance reform since last year or so when discussion of UHC started.

But I'll say this - people with pre-existing coverage are looking for others to subsidize their health care costs/insurance. There's no way around it. You can't 'insure' a pre-existing condition no more than after having an automobile accident you can go get insurance on those repair costs. The events happened, the costs are known, it ain't insurance it's reimbursement.

And as far as pre-existing conditions, the best place to start is sigificant cost reduction in the treatments that are known to be required. Instead of any effort at that we're busing demonizing HI companies (how many we gonna get around to demonizing in Obama first year? So far it's been Wall Street bankers, home mortgage companies, auto makers, all CEO's and execs, oil companies, power (electric) companies etc. It's getting ridiculous IMO).

Fern

If you could turn profits from 11 million to 243 million in 4 years while covering LESS people, costs are NOT the problem.

Keep repeating it though!

We already pay for people using the ER as their personal doctor, yet you are worried about covering pre-existing conditions like allergies and acne? Makes complete sense.

Who cares about fellow americans though? 15% tax to profit companies is important to keep. Just watch out if they deny you cancer coverage and cancel your health insurance because of your acne!

"But I'll say this - people with pre-existing coverage are looking for others to subsidize their health care costs/"

I'll say this, people who get sick or get cancer are looking for others to subsidize them. Oh, you mean like insurance? The whole idea is based on subsidizing. How about taking that $243 million in profit a year to subsidize them along with the 24 million dollar ceo salary? That's what would be done with UHC.

 

[imported_inspire]

But I'll say this - people with pre-existing coverage are looking for others to subsidize their health care costs/insurance. There's no way around it. You can't 'insure' a pre-existing condition no more than after having an automobile accident you can go get insurance on those repair costs. The events happened, the costs are known, it ain't insurance it's reimbursement.

So true, but isn't that how insurance works? Costs are spread out across a risk group so as to keep them affordable for everyone?

I kind of disagree a bit with your analogy. I think insuring a pre-existing condition is like telling someone that since they hit a deer on the road a few years ago, you'll insure their car, but they won't be covered if they hit another deer.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
If you could turn profits from 11 million to 243 million in 4 years while covering LESS people, costs are NOT the problem.

Keep repeating it though!

Costs ARE a problem. They are rising at more than twice the rate of inflation. No matter what level of profits you are seeking to achieve, higher health care costs that are covered drive premiums higher.

It's not that hard to understand. Get insurance quotes on a Camry vs a Rolls. The Rolls is much higher. Not because it's riskier, but because any cost that will be covered under the policy is much higher. reduce the costs of care, reduce the premium.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
We already pay for people using the ER as their personal doctor, yet you are worried about covering pre-existing conditions like allergies and acne? Makes complete sense.

I hear this repeated constantly and it's BS.

If you don't have an emergency you don't go to the ER unless you're an idiot. Bestowing HI upon an idiot doesn't make them smarter.

Even in my little town we have multiple out-patient clinincs, some right next to the hospital. That's where you go, whether or not you're insured, when you have an non-emergency type need.

The ER should simply re-direct those arriving without a bona-fide ER need to the outpatient clinic. Nor is there any reason for non-ER treatment given at an ER to be more expensive than similar treatment at a clinic.

BTW: None of this is addressed in the current UHC proposal as far as I can tell (it should have been).

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Who cares about fellow americans though? 15% tax to profit companies is important to keep. Just watch out if they deny you cancer coverage and cancel your health insurance because of your acne!

Federal level corporate tax is 35%, not 15%. Then there is state level income tax.

What's with the repeated BS about acne lately? The only people who never had acne arte those who haven't reached puberty yet. Too much hysteria.

"But I'll say this - people with pre-existing coverage are looking for others to subsidize their health care costs/"

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I'll say this, people who get sick or get cancer are looking for others to subsidize them. Oh, you mean like insurance? The whole idea is based on subsidizing. How about taking that $243 million in profit a year to subsidize them along with the 24 million dollar ceo salary? That's what would be done with UHC.

No insurance is not "subsidizing", it's a pooling of risk. Once the event has occurred, it's no longer "risk", but an actuality.

I'm no defender of HI companies, I've criticized them and their lame policies here frequently. But the level of hysteria and exaggeration in these threads is ridiculous.

Fern