On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[aquaadverse]

Never said he couldn't, just that the idea this could possibly be politically motivated was realistic. And since Holder was appointed by Reagan, I'm not real sure the political Party of the person who did the appointing is of any relevance.

I posted references to Justice documentation after you accused me of making up Federal Attorneys and the court system weren't routinely used to gather information to analyze recommendations.

The links in the blog were to Waxman and Dowd and others who expressed outrage at the process and are hardly hardcore Republicans looking for a scalp. It was to illustrate the outrage wasn't limited to partisans. I guess it would have been better to just lift the links.

I'm not angry. I took the time to use my shift key. And I've already said the actually pardon wasn't the point. Holder himself has admitted he did a poor job, he just never gave an explanation of why he didn't consult the prosecutors but just that he should have done it. Perhaps you should take up the issue with it being a usual process with him instead of me.

There are people who feel this has already been investigated and serves no real purpose that isn't outweighed by the damage it will do to the ability of getting quality people to do a difficult and dirty duty. Take it up with that hardcore right wing attack dog Panetta.

You want to take the position that opening previously closed files and exposing agents the gathering of classified information is acceptable, up to you. Here's another take of why the current initiatives could have a political bent:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...712840406.html

I'm not taking a position the use of the Justice Department for political reasons is more likely from one Party or another, just that your position Holder is above such things and has nothing in his past behavior to cast doubt is a simplistic one.

[dude1394]

Huh?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/024549.php

Today Michelle Obama got into the act, proclaiming that the current health care system "crushes women":

First lady Michelle Obama sought support for the administration's health-care plans from family advocacy groups and health-care professionals, saying the treatment of women under the current system is "unacceptable." ...

Michelle Obama said women are being "crushed by the current structure of our health care" because they often are responsible for taking care of family illnesses, arranging checkups and monitoring follow-up care.


"Women are the ones to do it," she said to an audience of 140 people, including representatives from groups such as the Women's Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of Negro Women. "Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses."

I really don't understand this. Under Obamacare, will someone other than mothers (or fathers) arrange checkups for their kids? Take care of family illnesses? Make sure the kids are taking their medicine and get follow-up care if they need it? Is there really anything like this in any of the Democrats' proposals? If mothers (and fathers) don't arrange their kids' checkups, who will? Someone else's mother or father, apparently. No doubt they'll care more and do a better job.


The Obama administration seems to be bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "nanny state."

[Mavdog]

wow, that blog entry is a great example of a failure to read and understand what is written (or in this case, what was said). the speech wasn't focused on the "check ups for their kid", that was a passing anecdote. the blog just seems to miss the points about different costs for women and men, that many needed medical procedures for women are not routinely covered. jeesh.

here's the speech, which makes many great points on the financial burden of taking care of elderly parents, the discrimination in costs for women's policies, as well as the situation of a single mother who is not receiving benefits from their employment.

I wonder why the blog ignored these primary subjects of the speech? go figure....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRS. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you all. Please, sit. Rest. (Laughter.) First of all, good morning. I am so thrilled to see so many of you here this morning at the White House. Welcome. And that's including my good friend, Dr. Dorothy Height. (Applause.) You know, she is always there, for the past eight months and before. If there was a big event, an important event, she finds a way to be here. She is my inspiration, and it is wonderful to see you again today. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Thank you all for joining us today for the outstanding work you're doing every day on behalf of women and families all across this country. I have to thank our extraordinary Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, for taking the time to be here. (Applause.) And for her tireless efforts to keep our nation healthy. And that includes not just pushing for health insurance reform but preparing us for H1N1, pursuing cutting-edge research to find treatments and cures for tomorrow. Clearly this is not the easiest portfolio she could have, but she is doing a terrific job, and we are grateful for her leadership.

And I also want to thank Tina Tchen, who you all know, for emceeing today. (Applause.) She, too, is doing a fabulous job as Director of our Office of Public Engagement, and she played a critical role in pulling together today's event -- not just as an emcee but as a key figurehead, making sure that we're all aware of what's going on.

And finally, I want to thank the three women behind me -- to Debi, Easter, and Roxi. (Applause.) It is not easy to come here and tell your story. And these stories aren't new. You know, these stories are happening all over this country, not just for thousands of women -- for millions of them. For two years on the campaign trail, this was what I heard from women, that they were being crushed, crushed by the current structure of our health care. Crushed. But these stories that we've heard today, and all of us -- if we're not experiencing it, we know someone who is. These are the stories that remind us about what's at stake in this debate. This is really all that matters. This is why we are fighting so hard for health insurance reform. This is it. This is the face of the fight.

And that's why I'd like to talk to you today. That's why I'm here. That's why reform is so critical in this country -- not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now. People are hurting in this country right now.

But there is also a reason why I invited this particular group to talk today. There's a reason why we've invited the leaders not only from family advocacy groups and health care advocacy groups, but for so many organizations that have been fighting for decades for empowerment for women. And that's because when it comes to health care, as the Secretary said, as we all know, women play a unique and increasingly significant role in our families. We know the pain, because we are usually the ones dealing with it.

Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they're the ones responsible for choosing their children's doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for managing that follow-up care. Women are the ones to do it. Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses. (Laughter.) And more than 10 percent of women in this country are currently caring for a sick or elderly relative. It's often a parent, but it could a grandparent, or a mother -- or a relative of some sort -- but it's often a parent. So they're making critical health care decisions for those family members as well.

In other words, being part of the sandwich generation, is what we are now finding, raising kids while caring for a sick or elderly parent, that's not just a work/family balance issue anymore. It's not just an economic issue anymore. More and more it is a health care issue. It's something that I have thought a great deal about as a mother.

I will never forget the time eight years ago when Sasha was four months that she would not stop crying. And she was not a crier, so we knew something was wrong. So we fortunately were able to take her to our pediatrician that next morning. He examined her and said something's wrong. We didn't know what. But he told us that she could have meningitis. So we were terrified. He said, get to the emergency room right away.

And fortunately for us, things worked out, because she is now the Sasha that we all know and love today -- (laughter) -- who is causing me great -- excitement. (Laughter.)

But it is that moment in our lives that flashes through my head every time we engage in this health insurance conversation. It's that moment in my life. Because I think about what on earth would we have done if we had not had insurance. What would have happened to that beautiful little girl if we hadn't been able to get to a pediatrician who was able to get us to an emergency room? The consequences I can't even imagine. She could have lost her hearing. She could have lost her life if we had had to wait because of insurance.

And it was also fortunate that we happened to have good insurance, right? Because if we hadn't had good insurance, like many of the panelists up here, we would have been saddled with costs for covering that emergency room visit for her two days in the hospital. We would have still been paying off those bills.

And this issue isn't something that I've thought about as a mother. I think about it as a daughter. As many of you know, my father had multiple sclerosis. He contracted it in his twenties. And as you all know, my father was a rock. He was able to get up and go to work every day, even though it got harder for him as he got sicker and more debilitated. And I find myself thinking, what would we have done as a family on the South Side of Chicago if my father hadn't had insurance, if he hadn't been able to cover his treatments? What would it have done to him to think that his illness could have put his entire family into bankruptcy? And what if he had lost his job, which fortunately he never did? What if his company had changed insurance, which fortunately never happened, and we became one of the millions of Americans, families, who can't get insurance because of a preexisting condition?

So these are the thoughts that run through my mind as I watch this debate and hope that we get it right.

But let's be clear: Women aren't just disproportionately affected by this issue because of the roles that we play in families. As Tina and Kathleen mentioned, women are affected because of the jobs that we do in this economy. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time, or to work in small companies or businesses that don't provide any insurance at all.

Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender. And this is still shocking to me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night; that women in this country have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions like having a C-section or having had a baby. In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence.

And a recent study showed that 25-year-old women are charged up to 45 percent more for insurance than 25-year-old men for the exact same coverage. And as the age goes up, you get to 40, that disparity increases to 48 percent -- 48 percent difference for women for the exact same coverage in this country.

But it's not just women without insurance, as we've heard, as we know who are affected. Plenty of women have insurance. But it doesn't cover basic women's health services like maternity care or preventative care like mammograms or pap smears, which we all know we have to have. We can't go without these basic services. But many insurance policies don't even cover it.

Or policies cap the amount of coverage that you can receive, as you've heard, or it drops coverage when people get sick and they really need the care. Or maybe people have coverage but they're worried about losing it if they lose their jobs or if they change jobs or if the company changes insurance carriers. Out-of-pocket costs get higher and higher. It's hard to be able to plan your monthly bills when you don't know what your premiums are going to be. So a lot of people find they have to drop their insurance because they can no longer afford it.

Just think about it. Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men -- to a man. So it's not exactly surprising when we hear statistics that more than half of women report putting off needed medical care simply because they can't afford it.

Now, we have trouble putting ourselves first when we have the resources -- just making the appointment when you have insurance to get your regular screenings, to take care of those illnesses, those bumps and lumps and pains that we tend to ignore. But then not to be able to do it because you can't have insurance, you don't have insurance -- it's not surprising that so many millions of women around this country are simply going without insurance at all.

See, and the thing that we all know is that the current state -- this current situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. (Applause.) No one in this country should be treated that way. It's not fair. It's not right. And these are hard-working people we're talking about, right? People who care about their kids, care about their lives. And these circumstances could happen to any of us. This is one of those, "There but for the grace of God go I" kind of situations. None of us are exempt -- ever.

So I think it's clear that health insurance reform and what it means for our families is very much a women's issue. It is very much a women's issue.

And if we want to achieve true equality for women, if that is our goal; if we want to ensure that women have opportunities that they deserve, if that is our goal; if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things that they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system. We have to reform the system. The status quo is unacceptable. It is holding women and families back, and we know it.

Fortunately, that is exactly what my husband's plan proposes to do, and it's important for us to understand some of the basic principles of that plan. Under his plan, if you don't have insurance now, or you lose your insurance at some point in the future, you'll be able to purchase affordable coverage through an insurance exchange -- a marketplace with a variety of options that will let you compare prices and benefits. This is exactly the approach that is used to provide members of Congress with insurance. So the thought is that if it's good enough for members of Congress, it should be good enough for the people who vote them in. (Applause.)

And this is also an important part of the plan. If you already have insurance -- and it seems that there are a lot of people who are worried that they'll lose what they have under this plan -- but under this plan, if you already have insurance, you're set. Nothing changes. You keep your insurance, you keep your doctors -- and you're blessed. (Laughter.) This plan just puts in place some basic rules of the road to protect you from the kinds of abuses and unfair practices that we've heard.

Under this plan, insurance companies will never again be allowed to deny people like Debi and her son coverage for preexisting conditions. Sounds like a good thing. So whether you have breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, or hypertension -- or even just had a C-section, or some mental health treatment that you had in your past -- none of that will be a reason to refuse you coverage under the plan that my husband is proposing. Because when you're fighting an illness, he believes that you shouldn't also have to be in the process of fighting the insurance companies at the same time. (Applause.) It's a basic idea.

Under this plan, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get too sick, or refuse to pay for the care that you need, or to set a cap on the amount of coverage that you can get. And it will limit how much they can charge you for out-of-pocket expenses, because getting sick in this country shouldn't mean that you go bankrupt. That's a basic principle of this plan.

And finally, this plan will require insurance companies to cover basic preventative care. Seems simple. (Applause.) From routine checkups, to mammograms, to pap smears -- and this would come at no extra charge to the patient, so folks like Roxi can get the chance to get the kind of screenings that she needs to save her life, because we already know that if we catch diseases like cancer early -- we know this -- it's much less costly to treat, and we might just be able to save some lives. We know this.

So, under this plan, we can save lives and we can save money. It's not just good medicine but it's good economics as well.

So I think this is a pretty reasonable plan. I don't know about you. (Applause.) But I know many of you believe it's a good plan as well. And I know that many of the groups that you represent believe that what we're doing here, this fight, is important. It's important to this country, it's important to women, it's important to families that we succeed.

And now more than ever, as Tina said, as Secretary Sebelius said, we need to act. No longer can we sit by and watch the debate take on a life of its own. It is up to us to get involved, because what we have to remember is that now more than ever, we have to channel our passions into change.

That's nothing that you all haven't done before, right? (Laughter.) You all have been the driving force behind so many of our greatest health care achievements, whether it's been children's health insurance; to funding breast cancer research, stem cell research; to passing the Family Medical Leave Act. The folks in this room, you're the ones that made those phone calls, right? That you wrote those letters, you knocked on those doors. You're the ones that helped make that happen.

And that's exactly what we need you to do today for health insurance reform. We are going to need you over the next few weeks to mobilize like you've never mobilized before. We need you to educate your members about what the plan really is and what it isn't, because education is the key to understanding, and it's going to take phone calls to explain, to talk things through, to make sure that people understand not just what's at stake but what this all means.

And we know there will be all sorts of myths and misconceptions about what the plan is and isn't, so it's so important that you make sure that people know the facts, and at least they make their decisions based on the truth of what this plan is and isn't. We need you to make your voices heard right here in Washington. And you all know how to do that. (Laughter.)

And no, it won't be easy, because there are always folks who are a little afraid of change. We all understand that. We talked about this all during the campaign. Change is hard. Sometimes the status quo, even if it isn't right, feels comfortable because it's what we know. So it is understandable that people are cautious about moving into a new place in this society. There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the way they are, to settle for the world as it is. We talked about that so much. This is one of those times.

But look, I am here today, standing before you as the First Lady of the United States of America, because you all didn't settle for the world as it is, right? (Applause.) You refused to settle. And as a result of many of your efforts, as a young girl, I was able to dream in ways that I could have never imagined, that my mother could never have imagined, that my grandmother could never have imagined. And thanks to so many of you, I am raising these beautiful young women, you know -- (applause) -- who are going to be able to think so differently about their place in the world because of the work that you've done.

Health care reform is part of that movement. Health insurance reform is the next step. So we're going to need you all, focused and clear, picking up the phones, talking, calling, writing your congressmen and women, making this something that is the highest priority for all of us, so that we can make sure that every single family in this country can move forward as we hope that they can; that they don't have to worry about whether they can insure themselves. They don't have to worry about whether their kids are going to break an arm. That's what kids do, they break stuff. (Laughter.)

So I am grateful for all of you, for the work that you've done, and for what I know that we can do together over the next several weeks. But we have to be, what, fired up and what?

[dude1394]

The blog got it's question from the blomberg article that is linked to it, if you really want to know.

[Mavdog]

so that is a valid justification for ignoring the very real and serious facts michelle obama spoke about?

well?

what about the higher cost of health insurance for women?

what about the lack of coverage for needed health care?

what about the very real difference in pay for women, which when compounded by the cost discrimination, produces a double affect?

nah, let's just snicker about the anecdote and pretend that these issues don't exist....that way the writer doesn't have to really think about the issue, he (notice it is a he) can just go on to his next piece of low brow work.

[dude1394]

Sure these issues exist, that's why a market driven solution would be welcome, not a socialist guvment takeover that is being pushed by barry and his lady.

There are plenty of issues with health care, but going another trillion into the hole isn't something folks are all that willing to take on right now.

Haha...

SO IF, AS MICHELLE OBAMA SAYS, women are “crushed” under our health care system, then how come they live longer than men?

[Mavdog]

yeah, "the market" has sure stopped these conditions from existing....wait, the market CAUSED these conditions to exist!

it's amazing when people react to the obvious inequities of the existing health insurance platform with a cry of "let the market work". the market has "worked" to bring about these conditions.

that ridiculous rhetoric of "a socialist guvment [sic] takeover" is just old, inaccurate, and insulting to anyone who has taken the time to understand the plans that have been proposed. there is no "takeover" of the insurers, no "takeover" of the hospitals, no "takeover" of the medical providors.

maybe the right has come up with a new definition of "socialism", because the definition of socialism that we've used for over a century sure isn't shown anywhere in these plans.

[Murphy3]

I suppose Obama surely makes the liberals begin to appreciate George W. Bush a little bit more.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, "the market" has sure stopped these conditions from existing....wait, the market CAUSED these conditions to exist!

it's amazing when people react to the obvious inequities of the existing health insurance platform with a cry of "let the market work". the market has "worked" to bring about these conditions.

that ridiculous rhetoric of "a socialist guvment [sic] takeover" is just old, inaccurate, and insulting to anyone who has taken the time to understand the plans that have been proposed. there is no "takeover" of the insurers, no "takeover" of the hospitals, no "takeover" of the medical providors.

maybe the right has come up with a new definition of "socialism", because the definition of socialism that we've used for over a century sure isn't shown anywhere in these plans.

Nope. The market didn't setup modern HMOs or make an employer's portion a deductible expense virtually killing individual policies. The market didn't refuse to reign in frivolous and costly litigation bringing defensive procedures to the process. The market didn't fracture itself into 50 markets. Both Partys are guilty. Characterizing current conditions as a free market with little in the way of regulations setting what's allowable is just flat wrong.

If the current proposals go through, the market isn't choosing the Public Option, if it stays, as the only national plan.

If you raise the exposure without doing anything to lower costs, you will set up the environment where insurers will leave the market. If the penalties for not offering coverage is lower than company offered coverage, they will stop doing it. And if a small business gets a hardship waiver, guess where the workers get coverage?

There isn't anything like a finished Bill to debate yet, and insurance companies don't have to offer coverage. If you abolish caps and make it illegal to consider preexisting conditions they will act like a business. It doesn't, as you keep maintaining, take some explicit law to force them out.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Nope. The market didn't setup modern HMOs

yep, hmo's have been around for almost a century, they were a creation of the "market".

or make an employer's portion a deductible expense virtually killing individual policies.

nope, almost 1/3 of those insured are thru individual policies.

The market didn't refuse to reign in frivolous and costly litigation bringing defensive procedures to the process. The market didn't fracture itself into 50 markets. Both Partys are guilty. Characterizing current conditions as a free market with little in the way of regulations setting what's allowable is just flat wrong.

odd, but none of that litany of complaints doesn't explain the issues mentioned, that women pay vastly more than men, and that many necessary procedures for women aren't even covered. care to try again?

If the current proposals go through, the market isn't choosing the Public Option, if it stays, as the only national plan.

yet all thos existing plans remain available to the people to purchase. your point isn't relative.

If you raise the exposure without doing anything to lower costs, you will set up the environment where insurers will leave the market. If the penalties for not offering coverage is lower than company offered coverage, they will stop doing it. And if a small business gets a hardship waiver, guess where the workers get coverage?

completely different issue. let's lower the costs as well.

There isn't anything like a finished Bill to debate yet, and insurance companies don't have to offer coverage. If you abolish caps and make it illegal to consider preexisting conditions they will act like a business. It doesn't, as you keep maintaining, take some explicit law to force them out.

insurance companies "don't have to offer coverage"? uh, no, they don't. thay don't have to offer coverage today, but they do, because that's their business. and they will still offer coverage tomorrow, because that's their business. just like every other business, and just like they have done over time when their regulatory rules have changed, they will adapt to the environment. they will not stop issuing policies and begin making toasters. it's ridiculous to claim they will not continue to be insurers.

the insurers are guilty to using the concept of pre existing conditions as a rationale to either charge exorbinant premiums or to deny benefits when a claim is made. asthma, arthritis, migraines, acne, toe nail fungus, attention deficit disorder, even the fact that an individual has sought therapy...these are not valid reasons for higher premiums or denial of benefits yet they have been used to deny benefits and impose higher costs. clearly this abuse can only be stopped by legislation.

[aquaadverse]

The HMO act of 1973 was the first effort to for force procedure by group at the same cost. You can keep trying to ignore it, but Nixon very deliberately wanted to switch the footing from individual policies to managed care by group to try to slow the inflation of costs from the new tech coming to market.

nope, almost 1/3 of those insured are thru individual policies

.

Then we have no worries from people losing coverage when they lose their jobs.

odd, but none of that litany of complaints doesn't explain the issues mentioned, that women pay vastly more than men, and that many necessary procedures for women aren't even covered. care to try again?

Probably because it's an entirely different subject. We don't have true competition on an open market basis. The ability to chose another insurer because it offers more benefit isn't happening. You can't blame a problem on a market when their isn't one.

yet all thos existing plans remain available to the people to purchase. your point isn't relative.

See Below.



Your continual claiming that insurance companies won't stop offering coverage if it's no longer profitable is wrong. They stopped offering homeowners insurance here in Florida and the State fund of last resort swelled to huge proportions. They aren't going to offer a product that loses them money.

The State had to change the underwriting laws to split wind/hurricane damage from the rest of the coverage and allow them to triple the deductible. Their business is making money. Until the environment was altered so they could make money again they stopped.

It's a fairytale belief that they'll forget they are a business and won't stop operating as one by offering coverage that is a loser. None of them only offers medical coverage, they have other lines. What's ridiculous is thinking they'll continue to market a product that loses them money. They don't get to print money or run at trillion dollar deficits.

the insurers are guilty to using the concept of pre existing conditions as a rationale to either charge exorbinant premiums or to deny benefits when a claim is made. asthma, arthritis, migraines, acne, toe nail fungus, attention deficit disorder, even the fact that an individual has sought therapy...these are not valid reasons for higher premiums or denial of benefits yet they have been used to deny benefits and impose higher costs. clearly this abuse can only be stopped by legislation.

No one is saying you don't need regulation.

You can't make a case that the current model of health care insurance is anywhere close to a free market. Until it's like Gieco or State Farm where I can carry my coverage from state to state it won't be. Your charge the companies have evolved to the current state in a free market so we have to have government competition is flawed.

The futility of handing out coverage versus lowering costs makes more sense if you look at the profit margins.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

The HMO act of 1973 was the first effort to for force procedure by group at the same cost. You can keep trying to ignore it, but Nixon very deliberately wanted to switch the footing from individual policies to managed care by group to try to slow the inflation of costs from the new tech coming to market.

here, it is clear you need to brush up on the history of managed care.
wiki hmo link

Then we have no worries from people losing coverage when they lose their jobs.

not for the one third, but you seem unconcerned for the 2/3 that do get employer based heath coverage.

Probably because it's an entirely different subject. We don't have true competition on an open market basis. The ability to chose another insurer because it offers more benefit isn't happening. You can't blame a problem on a market when their isn't one.

that's odd, my health care provided by my employer- the same employer for the last 24 years-has changed 4 times over that timeframe.

apparently only you can't "choose another insurer", because the rest of the country seems to have found a way.

Your continual claiming that insurance companies won't stop offering coverage if it's no longer profitable is wrong. They stopped offering homeowners insurance here in Florida and the State fund of last resort swelled to huge proportions. They aren't going to offer a product that loses them money.

why don't you point out where I've said "insurance companies won't stop offering coverage if it's no longer profitable"?

your attempt at a straw man argument is pretty easy to see.

insurance providors will continue to offer coverage because they will continue to make a profit doing such.

The State had to change the underwriting laws to split wind/hurricane damage from the rest of the coverage and allow them to triple the deductible. Their business is making money. Until the environment was altered so they could make money again they stopped.

property insurance is very different than health insurance.

It's a fairytale belief that they'll forget they are a business and won't stop operating as one by offering coverage that is a loser. None of them only offers medical coverage, they have other lines. What's ridiculous is thinking they'll continue to market a product that loses them money. They don't get to print money or run at trillion dollar deficits.

what? you need to call kaiser, united, humana and all those blue cross members and let them know they have other business lines than health insurance. they seem to be unaware of this discovery you've made!

You can't make a case that the current model of health care insurance is anywhere close to a free market. Until it's like Gieco or State Farm where I can carry my coverage from state to state it won't be. Your charge the companies have evolved to the current state in a free market so we have to have government competition is flawed.

The futility of handing out coverage versus lowering costs makes more sense if you look at the profit margins.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html

sure I can, there is clearly a competitive market for choosing health insurance. there isn't a lack of providors. there's over a dozen just here in texas.

many industries would be very happy with a net margin over 4%, and that's after the cos provide a very high level of compensation. these insurers aren't hurting by any criteria.

the costs need to come down as well. no one is arguing anything different.

[dude1394]

This guy is a nut. "We'll tax the air".

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
…
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394[/quote

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
…
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

The auto insurance analogy is such a flawed one. The only required auto insurance is liability insurance. That means if I hit you, my insurance coverage pays for your car to be fixed. I can choose whether to carry collision coverage, which covers damage to my own car. If I don't carry it, I have to pay cash to fix my car.

In a logically consistent analogy, health insurance is collision coverage, not liability coverage.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
…
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

The auto insurance analogy is such a flawed one. The only required auto insurance is liability insurance. That means if I hit you, my insurance coverage pays for your car to be fixed. I can choose whether to carry collision coverage, which covers damage to my own car. If I don't carry it, I have to pay cash to fix my car.

In a logically consistent analogy, health insurance is collision coverage, not liability coverage.

[/QUOTE]So the F what? Once they mandate insurance, it's a tax.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The auto insurance analogy is such a flawed one. The only required auto insurance is liability insurance. That means if I hit you, my insurance coverage pays for your car to be fixed. I can choose whether to carry collision coverage, which covers damage to my own car. If I don't carry it, I have to pay cash to fix my car.

In a logically consistent analogy, health insurance is collision coverage, not liability coverage.

one of the primary goals of mandated health insurance is to lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment.

today if an uninsured person incapable of paying for treatment needs care the cost is distributed among other patients or onto property owners in taxes.

in this regard it is similar to liability insurance. it covers the cost to others caused by an individual's need for care.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

one of the primary goals of mandated health insurance is to lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment.

today if an uninsured person incapable of paying for treatment needs care the cost is distributed among other patients or onto property owners in taxes.

Are you referring to emergency room care, or something else? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

[Mavdog]

Almost always emergency treatment, but also cases of indigent care. Bankrupcies of individuals owing for treatment is also a contributor.

[92bDad]

Mandating coverage is a load of crap...and yes it is a TAX!!!

Anything that someone HAS to pay to the Government is a TAX.

It's another way for the Government to take the people's money and use it as the Government sees best...rather than what the people see is best.

Now, when you add not only that it becomes mandatory, but now you add the amount some 20-30% of our household income...

Funny, currently I'm insured and I can afford it...under this Obama plan, I can't afford it...it's too expensive and I would imagine covers more that what I actually need.

Either this guy is truly the empty suite that Washington Insiders have been saying all along...or he's extremely clever and manipulative. Distracting the people from the meat of the plan/proposal...so that he can give in on those items that are hot button emotional aspects of his plan, in an effort to let what he really wants to go through under the radar.

What is so wrong with the government letting go of the current micro-management control that it has over the Health System and allowing true capatilism to shape and reform our Health System for the better? I know that in the end, this means less power and money for the Government and Politicians, but in the end, the people would be better served.

Now I get it...this entire debate is not about what's best for the people, but rather how much power, control and money the Government can have for itself...and how quickly they can make the people lower themselves to mere subjects of the ruling party.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

Almost always emergency treatment, but also cases of indigent care. Bankrupcies of individuals owing for treatment is also a contributor.

Okay. Can you explain to me how mandating coverage for everyone will "lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment"?

Why not just say we're going to subsidize treatment for people who can't afford it? Isn't that what Medicaid and CHIP are, in the first place?

How is it cheaper to tax (or charge premiums to, euphemistically speaking) everyone up front?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Okay. Can you explain to me how mandating coverage for everyone will "lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment"?

Why not just say we're going to subsidize treatment for people who can't afford it? Isn't that what Medicaid and CHIP are, in the first place?

How is it cheaper to tax (or charge premiums to, euphemistically speaking) everyone up front?

who do you believe currently pays the bill for treatment when the patient doesn't/can't pay?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Mandating coverage is a load of crap...and yes it is a TAX!!!

Anything that someone HAS to pay to the Government is a TAX.

newsflash...the government isn't the insurer. the policy is written by an insurer, who will receive the premiums, not the government.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

newsflash...the government isn't the insurer. the policy is written by an insurer, who will receive the premiums, not the government.

So why is the government involved at all?

What if I decide to live without coverage...who levies the fine? If I don't pay the fine what happens?

Ultimately, this plan comes down to Government imposing its will on the its people.

This should remain a private matter and the insurance companies should have more freedoms to compete in all states. The people should have more freedoms to customize thier policies and basically reject coverage for things that they believe they will not need.

For example, neither my wife nor I will ever get pregnant again...but the policy we currently have covers Pregnancy, simply because that is our companies group policy. In otherwords, I am paying for something that I obviously do NOT need in order to simply have some type of coverage.

But I digress...

All we want is for the Government to stay OUT of our business...LESS Government = Increased Individual Freedoms!!!

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

who do you believe currently pays the bill for treatment when the patient doesn't/can't pay?

It depends. If we are talking about a community clinic (like we have here locally), then federal funds pay for care. If we are talking about an emergency room, then the hospital writes off the bill when it can't be collected from the patient or from government subsidized programs.

Now, will you answer my questions?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

It depends. If we are talking about a community clinic (like we have here locally), then federal funds pay for care. If we are talking about an emergency room, then the hospital writes off the bill when it can't be collected from the patient or from government subsidized programs.

Now, will you answer my questions?

so at the community clinic the answer is federal taxes. with the emergency room, if it is a privately owned facility, it is the rest of the billed patients as uncollected receivables would be estimated and added to the price of services. if it is a public facility it is the property taxes levied to support the facility, or iow property owners in the tax jurisdiction.

in all these situations someone else pays for the care given to the uninsured. if the patient were to be insured those costs wouldn't be apportioned to, in the case of the federal taxes, the taxpayers, in the private facility, to the rest of the patients receiving services there, and in the case of the public facility, the property owners.

requiring insurance stops the subsidy you mention.

it isn't inherently cheaper, it is just more equitable, although there should be efficiencies that reduce overall costs caused by these unpaid receivables.

[92bDad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NC...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_tAe87ELo

First one is a serious clip, 2nd is a musical rather humorous clip.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

in all these situations someone else pays for the care given to the uninsured. if the patient were to be insured those costs wouldn't be apportioned to, in the case of the federal taxes, the taxpayers, in the private facility, to the rest of the patients receiving services there, and in the case of the public facility, the property owners.

requiring insurance stops the subsidy you mention.

No, it doesn't. Your question involved people who couldn't pay for services. Even if you mandate that they be insured, they still won't be paying.

it isn't inherently cheaper

At least we've got that out of the way.

it is just more equitable

The only way you can argue that it's more equitable is if it's requiring more folks to pay for their own care. If they can't pay in the first place, then an insurance mandate isn't going to change that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, it doesn't. Your question involved people who couldn't pay for services. Even if you mandate that they be insured, they still won't be paying.

if they are paying for the insurance then yes, they will be paying.

At least we've got that out of the way.

it also isn't inherently more expensive.

The only way you can argue that it's more equitable is if it's requiring more folks to pay for their own care. If they can't pay in the first place, then an insurance mandate isn't going to change that.

yes, it is requiring more folks to pay for their own care.

[92bDad]

I'll support healthcare reform under one condition.

If anything of my coverage changes, then all who signed off on the bill as politicians must immidiately resign or be impeached...from the President on down.

In otherwords, if my rates go up, or I have to pay for someone else's coverage...my services go down...my deductable goes up...any of it changes, then those who voted for the plan are fired...and the bill is revoked so that we go back to what it is today and then we rework to reform the plan in the way that Americans actually want.

If I'm wrong, and the promises and rhetoric coming out of the left are true, then they would have no problem putting their job on the line with this type of guarantee.

By the way, this also means that if anything changes in 10 years, then all those who voted for the bill, would lose any and all "Retirement" benefits...in other words, as it relates to the President...he would lose all that income he will be getting when he is out of office, he will also lose all the security details and other perks of having been President.

I'm curious...just how much is President Obama and the rest of the Democrats willing to back up what they say?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if they are paying for the insurance then yes, they will be paying.

Well, sure, if they are paying for the insurance. But the whole premise was that they don't have insurance NOW. What makes you think they'll suddenly be able to afford it on their own?

it also isn't inherently more expensive.

Sure it is. A mandate will unquestionably lead to the subsidization of a lot more health care than we have under the current system. I don't think that can be seriously debated.

yes, it is requiring more folks to pay for their own care.

Not really, unless you somehow believe that mandating coverage will make insurance cheaper. There's certainly no evidence of that.

[mcsluggo]

you are right in some (most) instances. But requiring everyone to stay covered across their whole life cycle will also require people in their 20s and 30s to remain covered. Many of these people take the calculated risk that they won't need coverage until they are older, and if they DO have a catastrophic event in the meantime, it will be before they will have accumulated significant assets that can be taken from them. Forcing THESE people into the system does reduce overall costs. Also forcing people into the system gives them access to less costly (in the long run) preventative care that hopefully they will utilize (since they have already paid for it) which also would lower overall costs.

that said.... it is hard to imagine that these cost benefits will outweigh some of the other increased costs from covering more people. HOwever, it is NOT hard to imagine that the coverage that these people receive will then be provided MUCH more efficiently (than catastrophic e-r care). So even if overall costs go up some, you are getting more than $1 in increased service for every $1 formally programmed.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Well, sure, if they are paying for the insurance. But the whole premise was that they don't have insurance NOW. What makes you think they'll suddenly be able to afford it on their own?

the uninsured lack coverage for a variety of reasons, cost being one of them. the proposals include a "bare bones" policy that could be lower in cost than what is offered today.

Sure it is. A mandate will unquestionably lead to the subsidization of a lot more health care than we have under the current system. I don't think that can be seriously debated.

there is no quid pro quo that the costs will increase, and there is rational that the costs will actually decrease. so yes your premise can be debated.

Not really, unless you somehow believe that mandating coverage will make insurance cheaper. There's certainly no evidence of that.

there can be less expensive policies offered, and for the reform to be successful there must be reduced costs as well.

[aquaadverse]

here, it is clear you need to brush up on the history of managed care.

Back Atcha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...on_Act_of_1973

that's odd, my health care provided by my employer- the same employer for the last 24 years-has changed 4 times over that time frame. apparently only you can't "choose another insurer", because the rest of the country seems to have found a way.

Now take a plan and move to another state and see how that works for you. There are 1300 companies offering the product. Large companies are often self insured and use the insurance company for administration. There is virtually no free market choice. My auto, life and individual accounts like brokerage have all followed me through 4 States in the last few decades with no hassles. Medical should be no different.

property insurance is very different than health insurance.

Yeah, taking in more in premiums than you pay out in claims and overhead in a highly regulated environment is worlds apart. No one sues them either.

what? you need to call kaiser, united, humana and all those blue cross members and let them know they have other business lines than health insurance. they seem to be unaware of this discovery you've made!

Blue Cross is nonprofit. Kaiser and Humana are the administrative fronts for the PPOs and HMOs associations. They don't and won't offer products at large. Their product isn't insurance, it's administration with a large chunk of the business self insured companies. Aetna and Prudential are insurance companies and offer product in other lines.

sure I can, there is clearly a competitive market for choosing health insurance. there isn't a lack of providors. there's over a dozen just here in texas.

many industries would be very happy with a net margin over 4%, and that's after the cos provide a very high level of compensation. these insurers aren't hurting by any criteria.

the costs need to come down as well. no one is arguing anything different.

There are 1300 companies who can't leverage national markets because we currently have 50 individual markets. While 12 providers in one of the largest and most populous states might be "competitive" for you, it's minuscule.

When and if a Public Option becomes available under the current proposals the US government will be pulling in a national market of penalty payers and a possible national plan like Medicare. Meanwhile 50 separate markets will still exist for everyone else.

[mcsluggo]

interesting article on malpractice, and the effect on medical costs

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/bu...nhardt.html?em

I personally still find the direct costs figures to be startlingly low... which is not to deny that there is still a drag on the system from this, but the drag is more ethereal than I had realized, and this leads to different possible solutions, I would assume--- I have to assume it is extremely hard to directly measure and quantify "defensive medicine", particularly to disentangle if from <<<whatever the term is for unnecessary tests that are not defensive... but are padding reimbursable costs>>> in this case, the goal would be to reduce costs overall, and not worry too hard about which of the two camps it falls under... death panels, anyone?

[dude1394]

Maybe this should be in the thugocracy thread.

Categories: Senate Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

In the comments .. "Yea go to jail ==== FREE health care!! "

[dude1394]

Republican health care principles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402003_pf.html

So here are 10 ideas to increase the affordability and quality of health care. Some of these are buried within various Republican and Democratic plans that have been floated. They offer a path forward toward significant bipartisan reform. These proposals would require insurance companies to do their jobs and spread risk over large populations, restore patients' power to make their own health-care decisions, and focus our system on quality instead of activity.

-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.

-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.

-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.

-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.

-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.

-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.

-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.

-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.

-- Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools -- helping to lower premiums for everyone.

-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
In short, ideas matter. The public is interested in solutions that will improve America's health-care system, not dismantle it. Republicans can lead on this.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Republican health care principles.

no, as jindal says himself "Some of these are buried within various Republican and Democratic plans that have been floated. They offer a path forward toward significant bipartisan reform."

the operative word is "bipartisan reform". it's a great concept....

[dude1394]

Couldn't agree more. I actually DO believe that health care is busted(including medicare) but this cluster-**** being foisted on the country is unbelievable, as Charles says, there isn't enough graft in actually fixing it.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Kill The Bills: Do Health Reform Right. “Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative. The problem is that the Democrats have chosen the worst possible method — a $1 trillion new entitlement of stupefying arbitrariness and inefficiency. The better choice is targeted measures that attack the inefficiencies of the current system one by one — tort reform, interstate purchasing. and taxing employee benefits. It would take 20 pages to write such a bill, not 2,000 — and provide the funds to cover the uninsured without wrecking both U.S. health care and the U.S. Treasury.” But there’s no graft in that approach.

[dude1394]

JOHN STOSSEL: We Pay Them To Lie To Us. “I happily suspend disbelief when a magician says he’ll saw a woman in half. That’s entertainment. But when Harry Reid says he’ll give 30 million additional people health coverage while cutting the deficit, improving health care and reducing its cost, it’s not entertaining. It’s incredible.”

[dude1394]