So for those of you who haven't seen Sicko, the US is the only "western" nation that doesn't have socialized health care. As a result, our health care costs exceed 15% of our GDP (expected to increase to 20% GDP by 2017). That equates to over $6,000 per person every year. In…
Originally posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 (2 years ago)
Wino really knows how to troll. It's not that his conclusions are invalid WRT his premises, it's simply that every single one of his premises are the polar opposite of reality. Up is down, yes is no, black is white. His point of view is that of someone living in the anti-universe where Superman is evil and broccoli tastes like chocolate.
Originally posted Friday, December 25, 2009 (2 years ago)
For all of you who think that the public supports the "public option", if that were true, the democrats in Congress are idiots for not pushing it.
The Senate bill is very long and very complicated. As the voters learn more about the bill, will they embrace it or vote republican in the next election? That remains to be seen.
Originally posted Friday, December 25, 2009 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "Wino" 1. For all of you who think that the public supports the "public option", if that were true, the democrats in Congress are idiots for not pushing it.
2. The Senate bill is very long and very complicated. As the voters learn more about the bill, will they embrace it or vote republican in the next election? That remains to be seen.
Here is some more info/ opinion about the bill:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516146&Ntt=
Again, Wino, you really need to do a better job of vetting your sources. "Betsy" McCaughey is a known liar and distorter of facts. She regularly says things that are not true and contradicted by the text of laws she's trying to criticize. She has a long track record of this.
Most of what she wrote in the opinion piece is outright wrong, the rest is distortion. She has absolutely no credibility.
Originally posted Monday, December 28, 2009 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "Wino" 1. For all of you who think that the public supports the "public option", if that were true, the democrats in Congress are idiots for not pushing it.
I agree, the Democrats in Congress are idiots for not fighting harder for it.
Originally posted Monday, December 28, 2009 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "catlike"
Quoted from "Wino" 1. For all of you who think that the public supports the "public option", if that were true, the democrats in Congress are idiots for not pushing it.
2. The Senate bill is very long and very complicated. As the voters learn more about the bill, will they embrace it or vote republican in the next election? That remains to be seen.
Here is some more info/ opinion about the bill:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516146&Ntt=
Again, Wino, you really need to do a better job of vetting your sources. "Betsy" McCaughey is a known liar and distorter of facts. She regularly says things that are not true and contradicted by the text of laws she's trying to criticize. She has a long track record of this.
Most of what she wrote in the opinion piece is outright wrong, the rest is distortion. She has absolutely no credibility.
See here:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/i_was_wrong.php
and here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/betsy-mccaugheys-ideas-ca_n_264970.html
I can't believe he actually quoted the nut job that started the "Death Panel" distraction, which became Politico's number one lie of the year.
Quote BILL MOYERS: Let's start with some news. Some of the big insurance companies, Well Point, Cigna, United Health, all surged to a 52 week high in their share prices this week when it was clear there'd be no public option in the health care bill going through Congress right now. What does that tell you, Matt?
MATT TAIBBI: Well, I think what most people should take away from this is that the massive subsidies for health insurance companies have been preserved while it's also expanded their customer base because there's an individual mandate in the bill that's going to provide all these companies with the, you know, 25 or 30 million new people who are going to be paying for health insurance. So, it's, obviously, a huge boon to that industry. And I think Wall Street correctly read what the health care effort is all about.
ROBERT KUTTNER: Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff, was Bill Clinton's Political Director. And Rahm Emanuel's take away from Bill Clinton's failure to get health insurance passed was 'don't get on the wrong side of the insurance companies.' So their strategy was cut a deal with the insurance companies, the drug industry going in. And the deal was, we're not going to attack your customer base, we're going to subsidize a new customer base. And that script was pre-cooked so it's not surprising that this is what comes out the other side.
BILL MOYERS: So are you saying that this, what some call a sweetheart deal between the pharmaceutical industry and the White House, done many months ago before this fight really began, was because the drug company money in the Democratic Party?
ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it's two things. Part of it was we need to do whatever it takes to get a bill. Never mind whether it's a really good bill, let's get a bill passed so we can claim that we solved health insurance. Secondly, let's get the drug industry and the insurance industry either supporting us or not actively opposing us. So that there was some skirmishing around the details, but the deal going in was that the administration, drug companies, insurance companies are on the same team. Now, that's one way to get legislation, it's not a way to transform the health system. Once the White House made this deal with the insurance companies, the public option was never going to be anything more than a fig leaf. And over the summer and the fall, it got whittled down, whittled down, whittled down to almost nothing and now it's really nothing.
MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, and this was Howard Dean's point this week was that this individual mandate that's going to force people to become customers of private health insurance companies, the Democrats are going to end up owning that policy and it's going to be extremely unpopular and it's going to be theirs for a generation. It's going to be an albatross around the neck of this party.
ROBERT KUTTNER: Think about it, the difference between social insurance and an individual mandate is this. Social insurance everybody pays for it through their taxes, so you don't think of Social Security as a compulsory individual mandate. You think of it as a benefit, as a protection that your government provides. But an individual mandate is an order to you to go out and buy some product from some private profit-making company, that in the case of a lot of moderate income people, you can't afford to buy. And the shell game here is that the affordable policies are either very high deductibles and co-pays, so you can afford the monthly premiums but then when you get sick, you have to pay a small fortune out of pocket before the coverage kicks in. Or if the coverage is decent, the premiums are unaffordable. And so here's the government doing the bidding of the private industry coercing people to buy profit-making products that maybe they can't afford and they call it health reform.
Quote Economist L. Randall Wray writes that ever since Congress threw out the Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial banking from investment banking, insurance and Wall Street finance have been two peas in a pod. He maintains:
Quote Here s the opportunity, Wall Street s newest and bestest gamble: there is a huge untapped market of some 50 million people who are not paying insurance premiums and the number grows every year because employers drop coverage and people can t afford premiums. Solution? Health insurance reform that requires everyone to turn over their pay to Wall Street. Can t afford the premiums? That is OK Uncle Sam will kick in a few hundred billion to help out the insurers. Of course, do not expect more health care or better health outcomes because that has nothing to do with reform . Heckuvajob Baucus is more concerned about Wall Street s insurers, who see a missed opportunity. They ll collect the extra premiums and deny the claims. This is just another bailout of the financial system, because the tens of trillions of dollars already committed are not nearly enough.
Originally posted Monday, December 28, 2009 (2 years ago)
Yep, pretty much pill_popper.
We will get some good protections out of this that'll be nearly impossible to ever revoke, but we're going to be paying a huge, huge cost for them.
On the plus side if it's costly enough, maybe it'll finally inspire people to actually push for real, practical reform ala single payer or similar. We'll see how things are in 5-10 years.
The real problem is how much power the insurance companies have and how much of a vested interest they have in keeping things as screwed up as possible. Remember they are feeding from both sides of the cake: Health insurance premiums go up because doctors and hospitals charge more and more...and they charge more and more to pay for rising malpractice insurance costs, and guess who's selling that malpractice insurance policy...
The entire insurance industry simply has no legit reason to exist. It's a leech, nothing more.
Originally posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "Zenin" We will get some good protections out of this that'll be nearly impossible to ever revoke, but we're going to be paying a huge, huge cost for them.
...
Health insurance premiums go up because doctors and hospitals charge more and more...and they charge more and more to pay for rising malpractice insurance costs...
Well, that's part of what they're charging for. Part is reimbursing providers for services, and part is "bad debt" -- what it costs to give treatment to those who never pay for it. That last part, at least, should be reduced if everyone has to have insurance.
It does seem to be true that insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums and denying claims, but one would hope that the new regulation would give them fewer excuses to deny claims. Maybe there's a chance for more efficiency there as well.
Originally posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 (2 years ago)
Catlike-
Your standards of proof for a "known liar" are lower than mine.
There are certainly a lot of internet posts calling McCaughey a liar, but they look more like political attacks than proof to me.
I looked at the Atlantic article and am not persuaded that the author gave a fair analysis. I actually read what was referred to as "Hillarycare", and it seemed clear to me at the time that Hillary intended to make it illegal to go outside the government plan for coverage or pay doctors on your own. The fact that the preamble to a bill states that something is not the intent of the bill doesn't mean that the bill actually accomplishes the intent. The fact that the author doesn't discuss the origin of her assertion makes his analysis suspect to me.
In addition, I think that the accusation of death panels was valid.
Those of you on the left look at the stated intent of bills and the language and assume that the bills will accomplish their intent. If the phrase "death panel" doesn't appear in the bill (and as far as I know it hasn't appeared in any bill that could be labeled Obamacare), you conclude that anyone using the term is lying.
People on the right try to determine what would be the consequences of a bill. If the government would coerce people into being more dependent on the government, and if the government will be cutting costs, a logical conclusion is that government employees will be rationing care, and thus we would have "death panels".
The bottom line is that you didn't even attempt to refute any of the analysis of the Senate bill. You merely engaged in character assassination. I assume that you have no idea what the Senate bill would actually do (if enacted into law) and don't care because the people voting for it would have good intentions.
Re: The insurance companies-
I don't think that the Senate bill is as favorable to them as most of you appear, but if you believe that Obamacare is too generous to the insurance companies, please feel free to encourage your Representative to vote against it.
Originally posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "Wino" In addition, I think that the accusation of death panels was valid.
Yeah, if you are a conservative prick like yourself. Coverage of DNRs, living wills, and power of attorney was what was labeled as death panels.
Quoted from "Wino"
The bottom line is that you didn't even attempt to refute any of the analysis of the Senate bill.
Actually many people here have attempted to point-by-point refute the bs you spout, but you either ignore it or move the goal posts to justify your delusional conservatism.
Why don't you just come out and accuse gays and abortionists as the ones destroying our country?
Originally posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "Wino" Catlike-
Your standards of proof for a "known liar" are lower than mine.
There are certainly a lot of internet posts calling McCaughey a liar, but they look more like political attacks than proof to me.
She pulls complete BS out of her backside far more often then she says anything true. She's a liar by any sane standard.
Of course, you Wino, also pull complete BS out of your backside far more often then otherwise, but we somewhat forgive you as it's clear you're little more then a tool.
Quote Re: The insurance companies-
I don't think that the Senate bill is as favorable to them as most of you appear, but if you believe that Obamacare is too generous to the insurance companies, please feel free to encourage your Representative to vote against it.
That's better done in round two or three. The insurance companies really have no justifiable reason to exist at all, but trying for that knockout punch in round one would be foolish tactically.
Originally posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 (2 years ago)
Wino - I'm just wondering what your feelings are on organ transplantation, and if positive, you think such procedures contribute to the U.S. having the best medical care in the world. I'm pretty sure that the U.S. holds the large majority of firsts in this area.
Originally posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 (2 years ago)
Quoted from "Wino"
In addition, I think that the accusation of death panels was valid.
Those of you on the left look at the stated intent of bills and the language and assume that the bills will accomplish their intent. If the phrase "death panel" doesn't appear in the bill (and as far as I know it hasn't appeared in any bill that could be labeled Obamacare), you conclude that anyone using the term is lying.
People on the right try to determine what would be the consequences of a bill. If the government would coerce people into being more dependent on the government, and if the government will be cutting costs, a logical conclusion is that government employees will be rationing care, and thus we would have "death panels".
READ: Conservatives feel free to make things up and ignore facts. Indeed they have contempt for facts, just like they have contempt for science.
These are not logical conclusions, but rather tortured reasonings blinded by ideology.
Quoted from "Wino"
The bottom line is that you didn't even attempt to refute any of the analysis of the Senate bill. You merely engaged in character assassination. I assume that you have no idea what the Senate bill would actually do (if enacted into law) and don't care because the people voting for it would have good intentions.
OKAY, HERE ARE A COUPLE QUICK REFUTATIONS.
MCCAUGHEY's LIE/DISTORTION A
"3. A one-size-fits-all health plan: Your benefit package will be prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Whether you choose basic, silver or gold, and whether you pay for it yourself or qualify for a subsidy, your benefits are the same.
Gold plans simply collect more up front and give you a lower co-pay or deductible. It's unclear how possible it will be to buy supplemental insurance. The goal is to discourage health consumption and differences based on ability to pay."
THE ACTUAL BILL: P. 108, after the discussion of the setting of essential health benefits:
"(5) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit a health plan from providing benefits in excess of the essential health benefits described in this subsection."
This seems no different than many state regulations already in existence that set MINIMUM criteria for health insurance plans. In addition, there are lots of loopholes for states to experiment. Also my understanding is that employers who self-insure are totally free from most of the new regulations on health care plans. So, some large employers will be totally off the hook in terms of lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions, etc.... So there is nothing in the bill that says everyone will have a one-size-fits all plan where the benefits are the same. Indeed there is language that explicitly states that nothing prevents plans from going beyond these minimum criteria. So, she's lying and making things up.
LIE/DISTORTION B:
"5. Government controls on your doctors' decisions: The Senate bill bars doctors from participating in the private insurance system unless they implement whatever regulations the secretary of health and human services chooses to impose to "improve health care quality" (p. 149). That broad phrase encompasses everything in medicine.
This would be the first time in history that the federal government is given power over how doctors treat privately insured patients."
I HAVE NO CLUE WHERE MCCAUGHEY IS PULLING THIS FROM. I LOOKED AT P. 149. YES THIS IS A SECTION ON IMPROVING QUALITY THROUGH MARKET-BASED INCENTIVES. IT COVERS A BUNCH OF GRANT PROGRAMS THAT EXPERIMENT WITH DIFFERENT MODELS FOR COMPENSATING DOCTORS. YES, THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION, BUT NOTHING ABOUT BANNING DOCTORS FROM GETTING PAID THROUGH PRIVATE INSURANCE UNLESS THEY FOLLOW MANDATES. THIS APPEARS TO BE A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
Originally posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 (2 years ago)
This is a very moving segment Keith Olberman did about his experience with his dad currently in critical condition in the Hospital. Having just gone through this with my dad, it was particularly poignant for me. But many of us will eventually find ourselves dealing with these issues.
Originally posted Friday, March 19, 2010 (2 years ago)
I wish they'd just vote for it.
Obama keeps postponing his visit down here (to stick around and do what he can to get the bill through) and our PM is getting kind of antsy. Normally I wouldn't care, but he's like a little puppy dog demanding attention. It's bloody annoying. Please put him out of his misery.
Originally posted Monday, March 22, 2010 (2 years ago)
I'm proud of the Dems for pulling this through, despite all the teabagger fear-mongering and Republican legal delay tactics. It's not all that I wanted, but I hope it's the beginning of the beginning.
The bill does a number of good things. What I'm concerned about is that so many don't become effective until 2014. This seems like it will be an easy target for opponents to attack in the meantime.
A power swap in 2010/12 could kill this reform before it gets started.
Here's what takes effect the moment that this bill is signed into law:
* Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
* Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
* Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
* Lower seniors' prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
* Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
* Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
* Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;
* Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
* Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
* Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.
These things are great. I'm satisfied with what we got (also because of how easily a public option, or additional reforms, can be added to the existing structure of this reform if these changes alone do not bring costs under control), after doubting that anything would get done at all just a few weeks ago.
But to me, the two major points of HCR were:
* address the problem that 1 in 6 Americans is uninsured
* address the problem that the US spends over twice as much as other nations on healthcare, per capita (admittedly, health insurance reform can only do so much to help here, but it can help alleviate things)
The NYT quoted congressional estimates that, by 2014 when the major changes start to phase in, individual premiums will be 10-13% higher than they would have had HCR not passed.
High-risk pools, while better than nothing, are going to suffer from the fact that everyone in them is a health risk. This is the very reason we want everyone in the same pool. If the average health care costs in this country are $7k per cap including all of the people who just have their annual checkup and maybe a one-time prescription antibiotic, what will the average costs be for people in a pool that's skewed towards people with cancer, diabetes, HIV, etc? How many high risk people will be able to afford the premiums to pay into these pools? This is an earnest question -- I know some states currently have high risk pools, but I don't know how much of an effect they end up having on the uninsured population or if there is funding in the bill to relieve some of the premium costs.
I don't expect the uninsured to drop more than a few percentage points in the meantime, and I feel like I am being optimistic even saying that.
"Your premiums are over 10% higher, and the nation's uninsurance rate hasn't really changed" is a strong soundbite. I question that any change that happens before 2014 can give a rebuttal of the same strength.
Originally posted Monday, March 22, 2010 (2 years ago)
Stolen from Digg, best description of the process yet:
Quote Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"
Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"
12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States
Democrats: "We need health care reform"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!"
Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"
Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done"
Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"
Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate"
Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"
Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill"
Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"
Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."
One month later
Republicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever."
Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster"
Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You haven't listened to our ideas! You've shut us out of this whole process!"
Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal"
Republicans: "Smaller government"
Democrats: "That's not very specific"
Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting"
Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals"
Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!"
Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!"
Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Can't you see the American people don't want this?"
Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)"
Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!"
Democrats: "We should really consider voting--"
Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!"
Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"
As with medicare legislation a while ago.... it has always been the case this is just a starting point. This is only the beginning of health care reform, not the end of it. But without this bill passing, it totally would be the end of it. When the Clinton's got shut down I predicted 30 years till we had a decent health care reform. I haven't changed my mind yet, but this bill is giving me hope that I wasn't too optimistic.
The lack of cost containment is a huge issue (although it isn't totally lacking in that regard. Just insufficient.)
The good point about added costs landing on people with the "high quality" insurance plans (like the one I have for example) is that many of these people don't see the need for change to the system because they think their insurance is just peachy. The usual self-centered view....not surprisingly. Most people don't think through the costs to society at large, or for that matter to themselves if something catastrophic happens.
There's still going to be a long protracted struggle over health care reform.
From the article:
Quote "...it is essential that someone clarifies from the left why this bill is a very bad idea. The major problem with this reform is that it expands the number of people being insured without major cost reductions and containment. This not only means that in the near future, the cost of insurance plans will go up, but insurers and pharmaceutical corporations will continue to rake in huge profits."
That's a huge concern. Is there going to be regulatory and enforcement muscle along with this bill?
'cause right now, the insurance companies and Big Pharma get a nice double-dip. They can raise prices on premiums to protect their profit margins and fund the new mandated coverages, pass along costs to consumers, and then turn right around and exploit the unhappiness by lobbying for repeal of the legislation.
Listen 24 hours a day! Weekly updated shows
National Public Health Care Option Activism Thread
So for those of you who haven't seen Sicko, the US is the only "western" nation that doesn't have socialized health care. As a result, our health care costs exceed 15% of our GDP (expected to increase to 20% GDP by 2017). That equates to over $6,000 per person every year. In…
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next > (919 items total)
Wino really knows how to troll. It's not that his conclusions are invalid WRT his premises, it's simply that every single one of his premises are the polar opposite of reality. Up is down, yes is no, black is white. His point of view is that of someone living in the anti-universe where Superman is evil and broccoli tastes like chocolate.
Wino, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
Fixed your post.
What's a good Christian woman supposed to do in the wake of the Senate passing health reform?
Angrily take down her own Christmas tree, wreath and lights! :spineyes:
Martinis do not contain vodka. —Rachel Maddow
For all of you who think that the public supports the "public option", if that were true, the democrats in Congress are idiots for not pushing it.
Here is some more info/ opinion about the bill:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516146&Ntt=
Again, Wino, you really need to do a better job of vetting your sources. "Betsy" McCaughey is a known liar and distorter of facts. She regularly says things that are not true and contradicted by the text of laws she's trying to criticize. She has a long track record of this.
Most of what she wrote in the opinion piece is outright wrong, the rest is distortion. She has absolutely no credibility.
See here:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/i_was_wrong.php
and here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/betsy-mccaugheys-ideas-ca_n_264970.html
I agree, the Democrats in Congress are idiots for not fighting harder for it.
I can't believe he actually quoted the nut job that started the "Death Panel" distraction, which became Politico's number one lie of the year.
:::ROFLMAO:::
Brilliant, just brilliant!
Something's Not Right Here
LET THEM EAT CAKE: THE ANOMALY OF COMPULSORY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
you just got to listen to the music, 'cause it's talkin' to you man! -frankie http://www.zazzle.com/anarchyforpresident
Yep, pretty much pill_popper.
We will get some good protections out of this that'll be nearly impossible to ever revoke, but we're going to be paying a huge, huge cost for them.
On the plus side if it's costly enough, maybe it'll finally inspire people to actually push for real, practical reform ala single payer or similar. We'll see how things are in 5-10 years.
The real problem is how much power the insurance companies have and how much of a vested interest they have in keeping things as screwed up as possible. Remember they are feeding from both sides of the cake: Health insurance premiums go up because doctors and hospitals charge more and more...and they charge more and more to pay for rising malpractice insurance costs, and guess who's selling that malpractice insurance policy...
The entire insurance industry simply has no legit reason to exist. It's a leech, nothing more.
Well, that's part of what they're charging for. Part is reimbursing providers for services, and part is "bad debt" -- what it costs to give treatment to those who never pay for it. That last part, at least, should be reduced if everyone has to have insurance.
It does seem to be true that insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums and denying claims, but one would hope that the new regulation would give them fewer excuses to deny claims. Maybe there's a chance for more efficiency there as well.
-- Rachel
Catlike-
Your standards of proof for a "known liar" are lower than mine.
There are certainly a lot of internet posts calling McCaughey a liar, but they look more like political attacks than proof to me.
I looked at the Atlantic article and am not persuaded that the author gave a fair analysis. I actually read what was referred to as "Hillarycare", and it seemed clear to me at the time that Hillary intended to make it illegal to go outside the government plan for coverage or pay doctors on your own. The fact that the preamble to a bill states that something is not the intent of the bill doesn't mean that the bill actually accomplishes the intent. The fact that the author doesn't discuss the origin of her assertion makes his analysis suspect to me.
In addition, I think that the accusation of death panels was valid.
Those of you on the left look at the stated intent of bills and the language and assume that the bills will accomplish their intent. If the phrase "death panel" doesn't appear in the bill (and as far as I know it hasn't appeared in any bill that could be labeled Obamacare), you conclude that anyone using the term is lying.
People on the right try to determine what would be the consequences of a bill. If the government would coerce people into being more dependent on the government, and if the government will be cutting costs, a logical conclusion is that government employees will be rationing care, and thus we would have "death panels".
The bottom line is that you didn't even attempt to refute any of the analysis of the Senate bill. You merely engaged in character assassination. I assume that you have no idea what the Senate bill would actually do (if enacted into law) and don't care because the people voting for it would have good intentions.
Re: The insurance companies-
I don't think that the Senate bill is as favorable to them as most of you appear, but if you believe that Obamacare is too generous to the insurance companies, please feel free to encourage your Representative to vote against it.
Yeah, if you are a conservative prick like yourself. Coverage of DNRs, living wills, and power of attorney was what was labeled as death panels.
Actually many people here have attempted to point-by-point refute the bs you spout, but you either ignore it or move the goal posts to justify your delusional conservatism.
Why don't you just come out and accuse gays and abortionists as the ones destroying our country?
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
She pulls complete BS out of her backside far more often then she says anything true. She's a liar by any sane standard.
Of course, you Wino, also pull complete BS out of your backside far more often then otherwise, but we somewhat forgive you as it's clear you're little more then a tool.
That's better done in round two or three. The insurance companies really have no justifiable reason to exist at all, but trying for that knockout punch in round one would be foolish tactically.
Wino - I'm just wondering what your feelings are on organ transplantation, and if positive, you think such procedures contribute to the U.S. having the best medical care in the world. I'm pretty sure that the U.S. holds the large majority of firsts in this area.
READ: Conservatives feel free to make things up and ignore facts. Indeed they have contempt for facts, just like they have contempt for science.
These are not logical conclusions, but rather tortured reasonings blinded by ideology.
OKAY, HERE ARE A COUPLE QUICK REFUTATIONS.
MCCAUGHEY's LIE/DISTORTION A
"3. A one-size-fits-all health plan: Your benefit package will be prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Whether you choose basic, silver or gold, and whether you pay for it yourself or qualify for a subsidy, your benefits are the same.
Gold plans simply collect more up front and give you a lower co-pay or deductible. It's unclear how possible it will be to buy supplemental insurance. The goal is to discourage health consumption and differences based on ability to pay."
THE ACTUAL BILL: P. 108, after the discussion of the setting of essential health benefits:
"(5) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit a health plan from providing benefits in excess of the essential health benefits described in this subsection."
This seems no different than many state regulations already in existence that set MINIMUM criteria for health insurance plans. In addition, there are lots of loopholes for states to experiment. Also my understanding is that employers who self-insure are totally free from most of the new regulations on health care plans. So, some large employers will be totally off the hook in terms of lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions, etc.... So there is nothing in the bill that says everyone will have a one-size-fits all plan where the benefits are the same. Indeed there is language that explicitly states that nothing prevents plans from going beyond these minimum criteria. So, she's lying and making things up.
LIE/DISTORTION B:
"5. Government controls on your doctors' decisions: The Senate bill bars doctors from participating in the private insurance system unless they implement whatever regulations the secretary of health and human services chooses to impose to "improve health care quality" (p. 149). That broad phrase encompasses everything in medicine.
This would be the first time in history that the federal government is given power over how doctors treat privately insured patients."
I HAVE NO CLUE WHERE MCCAUGHEY IS PULLING THIS FROM. I LOOKED AT P. 149. YES THIS IS A SECTION ON IMPROVING QUALITY THROUGH MARKET-BASED INCENTIVES. IT COVERS A BUNCH OF GRANT PROGRAMS THAT EXPERIMENT WITH DIFFERENT MODELS FOR COMPENSATING DOCTORS. YES, THERE ARE SOME CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION, BUT NOTHING ABOUT BANNING DOCTORS FROM GETTING PAID THROUGH PRIVATE INSURANCE UNLESS THEY FOLLOW MANDATES. THIS APPEARS TO BE A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
House and Senate Discussing Reconciliation to Pass Healthcare
and
C-SPAN Cameras to Cover Final Health Care Negotiations
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
This is a very moving segment Keith Olberman did about his experience with his dad currently in critical condition in the Hospital. Having just gone through this with my dad, it was particularly poignant for me. But many of us will eventually find ourselves dealing with these issues.
On another note...
Maddow calls out the absurd and blatantly false accusations currently being made by Republicans about the reconciliation process.
So today's the day for the House to vote this thing up or down, no? Predictions?
Why It Took Me 13 Years to Learn the Big Apple • My hiphop crew Freeplay performing at the Dance-a-Rama (video).
I wish they'd just vote for it.
Obama keeps postponing his visit down here (to stick around and do what he can to get the bill through) and our PM is getting kind of antsy. Normally I wouldn't care, but he's like a little puppy dog demanding attention. It's bloody annoying. Please put him out of his misery.
I'm surprised this thread hasn't gotten bumped yet.
House sends health care bill to Obama's desk.
Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
mebbe that's because they didn't pass the public option!
There was no land preservation in the Commonwealth of PA. Maybe they should go door to door to petition.
Be the best.
I'm proud of the Dems for pulling this through, despite all the teabagger fear-mongering and Republican legal delay tactics. It's not all that I wanted, but I hope it's the beginning of the beginning.
Why It Took Me 13 Years to Learn the Big Apple • My hiphop crew Freeplay performing at the Dance-a-Rama (video).
Maybe not yet, but expanding coverage, and making it so that insurance companies can't deny or rescind someone's coverage are all good things.
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
The bill does a number of good things. What I'm concerned about is that so many don't become effective until 2014. This seems like it will be an easy target for opponents to attack in the meantime.
A power swap in 2010/12 could kill this reform before it gets started.
- James
Here's what takes effect the moment that this bill is signed into law:
Website and Blog: ickeroo.com
These things are great. I'm satisfied with what we got (also because of how easily a public option, or additional reforms, can be added to the existing structure of this reform if these changes alone do not bring costs under control), after doubting that anything would get done at all just a few weeks ago.
But to me, the two major points of HCR were: * address the problem that 1 in 6 Americans is uninsured * address the problem that the US spends over twice as much as other nations on healthcare, per capita (admittedly, health insurance reform can only do so much to help here, but it can help alleviate things)
The NYT quoted congressional estimates that, by 2014 when the major changes start to phase in, individual premiums will be 10-13% higher than they would have had HCR not passed.
High-risk pools, while better than nothing, are going to suffer from the fact that everyone in them is a health risk. This is the very reason we want everyone in the same pool. If the average health care costs in this country are $7k per cap including all of the people who just have their annual checkup and maybe a one-time prescription antibiotic, what will the average costs be for people in a pool that's skewed towards people with cancer, diabetes, HIV, etc? How many high risk people will be able to afford the premiums to pay into these pools? This is an earnest question -- I know some states currently have high risk pools, but I don't know how much of an effect they end up having on the uninsured population or if there is funding in the bill to relieve some of the premium costs.
I don't expect the uninsured to drop more than a few percentage points in the meantime, and I feel like I am being optimistic even saying that.
"Your premiums are over 10% higher, and the nation's uninsurance rate hasn't really changed" is a strong soundbite. I question that any change that happens before 2014 can give a rebuttal of the same strength.
- James
Stolen from Digg, best description of the process yet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-samuels/the-progressive-case-agai_b_508473.html
IMO- An accurate summary of the situation.
As with medicare legislation a while ago.... it has always been the case this is just a starting point. This is only the beginning of health care reform, not the end of it. But without this bill passing, it totally would be the end of it. When the Clinton's got shut down I predicted 30 years till we had a decent health care reform. I haven't changed my mind yet, but this bill is giving me hope that I wasn't too optimistic.
The lack of cost containment is a huge issue (although it isn't totally lacking in that regard. Just insufficient.)
The good point about added costs landing on people with the "high quality" insurance plans (like the one I have for example) is that many of these people don't see the need for change to the system because they think their insurance is just peachy. The usual self-centered view....not surprisingly. Most people don't think through the costs to society at large, or for that matter to themselves if something catastrophic happens.
There's still going to be a long protracted struggle over health care reform.
From the article:
That's a huge concern. Is there going to be regulatory and enforcement muscle along with this bill?
'cause right now, the insurance companies and Big Pharma get a nice double-dip. They can raise prices on premiums to protect their profit margins and fund the new mandated coverages, pass along costs to consumers, and then turn right around and exploit the unhappiness by lobbying for repeal of the legislation.
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next > (919 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: