quote:B.S. Flag yourself SF. If Obama wanted to ramrod his personal agenda and force Universal Healthcare on America, guess what??? He's got the filibuster-proof majorities in both halls to do it. If that were his goal then a bill would already be signed into law by now.
Sorry, Big, that arguement only holds water if you presuppose that he can get all of his 'troops' in lockstep with him.
As I recall, Rep. Waxman threatened at one point to completely bypass the entire commitee process and write the entire bill himself just to get around the Blue Dogs. I also recall Obama sending Rahm "The Icepick" Emmanuel to the floor to talk to reluctant members. Now, I seem to remember that as being the Majority Whip's job, not the White House Chief of Staff.
So, unless this is the way the Dems in the House show 'unity,' I can't buy that the lack of passage of a bill is based solely on Obama's desire for debate.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Could you give me an example of these objective people whom you have placed so much of your faith in that you are willing to forgo reading the paper yourself in exchange for their opinions SF?
Or are you just spouting
That's a loaded question, Big. Who do you consider reliable? How about unreliable? I can show you the IBD article I've posted before:
posted
that article is crapola SF, and it's a perfect example of how people have sought to undo the bill simply to undo it.
they did not read the whole section as i pointed out right here ahwile back...
it's been debunked by numerous experts since then.
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.
if it is so important to have Obamas "waterloo" at teh cost of not just the truth but a way to save the American Public money? then this country is toast.
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED. -- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met:
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well SF your IBD article raises a legitimate point. However...from my understanding...the definition intended by the legislation is not the same as the definition provided by IBD.
From what 'I' have been led to believe...It limits private insurance providers from "grandfathering" people into their plans after the fact. It does not limit individuals from choosing the plan once they qualify for it.
I do agree that the paragraph needs to be reworded and clarified and I will say as much to my congressman. Good SF! Now we are really talking.
And yes I want the sources you consider objective as those are the sources you are using to form your opinion.
As to Obama...do you recall him having closed door meetings with Representative Waxman? Because I seem to recall differently. I seem to recall multiple meetings with both the BlueDogs and the Team of Six. Now isn't that right?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that you and I are once again understanding the same information differently, Glass. Let me quote from your link and explain...
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.
So, you could no longer purchase the existing policies (meaning what others currently have) but would have to buy a policy THROUGH the government regulated Exchange and subject to the regulations mandated by the Government.
Do you see what I'm referring to?
You are no longer free to purchase a 'government-hands-off' policy.
If that is NOT how you read it, please explain.
IP: Logged |
posted
Big, as far as the IBD article, see above answer to Glass.
quote:I do agree that the paragraph needs to be reworded and clarified and I will say as much to my congressman. Good SF! Now we are really talking.
And yet, worded as quoted, that is how Pelosi was pushing it through the House. And this is what has many conservatives (note the lack of use of Rep\Dem) concerned. This wording (and others in the bill) only has one of two possible excuses for their vaguery\ambiguity.
1) The authors are sadly lacking in skill\knowledge of how to clearly delineate their intended objectives.
or
2) The authors fully INTENDED it to be vague to allow for maximum manipulation after the law was passed. The wanted it to be ambiguous to allow them to sell it as one thing and then rule with it from another interpretation.
posted
As far as my 'sources' of opinion, here is a truncated list:
For finding news:
Usually Google's News link. It seems to pull up news based on popularity and thus runs what is currently being talked about. May be just my opinion as to how they choose stories, but I like it.
FoxNews\CNN : Reading both give me a good idea of how each 'side' views the issues I find on Google.
For what I consider informed opinions:
The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute are good places to find the conservative viewpoint (which I generally share on most issues) for most current affairs.
I like the often used Fact Check for major events that are generally subject to interpretation.
Finally, I do listen to talk radio on occasion as I'm driving. I generally only get to hear small portions of Glenn Beck and Dave Ramsey here but I like their takes on things usually.
Hope that helps to show where I'm coming from in general.
IP: Logged |
posted
You can come up with all kinds of plans for health care.
But the bottom libne we have the worst health care system in the industrial world we rank 37th as far as health getting to people
Almost 50 million people with out any health care .
Illagals that are getting taken care of by tax payer expence. they say 14,000 people are dropping into the ranks of uninsured evey day.And who knows how many people are under insured?
I have heard people from Europe say looking at a lot of American people is like seing people in a third world country health wise.
Our industry cant compete in a lot of cases any more because of health care expense.
If a single payer plan does not take affect this time it will in a couple of years when the pain levels get so high there will be riots. Simply put working class people that do not have employer based insurance cannot afford a private policy and there is 14000 aday more falling into that club.
look out drug companies ama and indurance companies its getting pretty close to the time you throw a little sop to the peon's if you want to stay in the picture at all the pot is boiling over
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
See here is where we are getting misrepresentations again.
quote: He says that he isn't for rationing healthcare. He says that he doesn't want to take away anyone's private healthcare plans if they like them. He says that the government doesn't want a say in your healthcare decisions. He says alot of nice things.
But...
Many people who have objectively (supposedly) looked at the current incarnation of the House's healthcare bill forsee just the opposite in all of these cases.
Now from this post and the subsequent link to the IBD article I believed you were inferring that individuals will not be able to purchase private healthcare plans once the reform act is enacted. That IS the text of the article you posted...
Now once we delve into the text of the argument you are saying that what you are concerned about is the government creating a regulation authority for health insurance.
Which is it SF? Are people not going to be able to by private health insurance or is the gov setting up a regulation authority? Those are two very different things.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
I'm just curious as to what the factors are in this rating. I heard this thrown around in the news but I never heard a basis for this. I'm not arguing it, it could be true, but where did it come from?
-------------------- "When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging." -H. Ross Perot
IP: Logged |
I'm just curious as to what the factors are in this rating. I heard this thrown around in the news but I never heard a basis for this. I'm not arguing it, it could be true, but where did it come from?
the World Health Organisation. they rate total population health
the numbers are based on things like infant mortality Infant mortality is defined as the number of deaths of infants (one year of age or younger) per 1000 live births.
the US rate is 6.3 which places US 33rd behind Britain (socialised medicine) and Canada
quote:Which is it SF? Are people not going to be able to by private health insurance or is the gov setting up a regulation authority? Those are two very different things.
What I am concerned about, Big, is twofold.
Part 1) As I listed from Glass's link to Media Matters' interpretation of the IDB article, once the reform bill takes effect (in it's current form), insurance policies as they currently exist will no longer be available. Even with the grandfathering clause viewed in it's entirety, no new policies will be extended that do not meet the exhanges regulations.
Let that sink in for a moment.
The government is going to mandate that private insurance companies increase their risk exposure by forcing them to accept 'pre-existing condition'-ers. These new poilicies will be guaranteed money losers as they, by definition, will need more money to cover than they will EVER produce in premium generated income.
Now, if you were in charge of the Insurance Company and knew that this increase in risk\cost was coming, what do you do to balance it out to maintain profitability? Raise premiums. But wait, Obama said that he is going to limit\cap premiums that insurance companies can charge.
Keep with me, I'm almost there...
So, we have an increase risk exposure mandated by law. We have a capped income pool, also limited by law. And...wait for it...a competing entity with unlimited funds (as they look at tax payer dollars).
How long do you think that private companies can survive in that environment?
Increased risk is why many property insurance companies stop issuing policies in certain geographical areas. The risk to return ratio doesn't make sense. That is exactly what the reform bill is going to mandate by capping premiums and mandating pre-existing condition acceptance.
quote:Which is it SF? Are people not going to be able to by private health insurance or is the gov setting up a regulation authority? Those are two very different things.
What I am concerned about, Big, is twofold.
Part 1) As I listed from Glass's link to Media Matters' interpretation of the IDB article, once the reform bill takes effect (in it's current form), insurance policies as they currently exist will no longer be available. Even with the grandfathering clause viewed in it's entirety, no new policies will be extended that do not meet the exhanges regulations.
Let that sink in for a moment.
The government is going to mandate that private insurance companies increase their risk exposure by forcing them to accept 'pre-existing condition'-ers. These new poilicies will be guaranteed money losers as they, by definition, will need more money to cover than they will EVER produce in premium generated income.
Now, if you were in charge of the Insurance Company and knew that this increase in risk\cost was coming, what do you do to balance it out to maintain profitability? Raise premiums. But wait, Obama said that he is going to limit\cap premiums that insurance companies can charge.
Keep with me, I'm almost there...
So, we have an increase risk exposure mandated by law. We have a capped income pool, also limited by law. And...wait for it...a competing entity with unlimited funds (as they look at tax payer dollars).
How long do you think that private companies can survive in that environment?
Increased risk is why many property insurance companies stop issuing policies in certain geographical areas. The risk to return ratio doesn't make sense. That is exactly what the reform bill is going to mandate by capping premiums and mandating pre-existing condition acceptance.
More later...
Given your sources, I'm not saying I agree with this post, but take a look at merely one practice of current insurance "business as usual":
posted
So, we have an increase risk exposure mandated by law. We have a capped income pool, also limited by law. And...wait for it...a competing entity with unlimited funds (as they look at tax payer dollars).
so in essence you think that the only way to run health care is survival of the fittest?
just wait till you need it buddy. this seems to me to be the underlying theme of the "new" conservative movement that is based on what Ayn Rand called Objectivism.
let's all be honest with each other here.
when it comes down to it? we have turned over our paychecks to our doctors to do as they please.
that's what's going on here, and they see the insurance co's as the right to charge and spend as much as they can because they would never do this crap to a real customer.
when you walk into the Dr's office? YOU are not the customer. YOU already paid your insurance co.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
GEB, take a look at that article on rescission. Link above..
i am...
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
i've been aware of this for years. it's hard to prove because you only hear word of mouth stories, the data is not easuy to prove
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
From 2000-04 profits for the top 17 insurance providers rose 114 percent. Comparatively, the S&P 500 only rose 5 percent. At the same time uninsured individuals grew by 6 million and health insurance premiums rose 60 percent.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: GEB, take a look at that article on rescission. Link above..
i am...
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
i've been aware of this for years. it's hard to prove because you only hear word of mouth stories, the data is not easuy to prove
It was little known until the LA Times broke it three years ago. Here's a summary from the June hearings:
quote:“Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show ‘intentional fraud.’
“The answer from all three executives:
” ‘No.’ “
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
I understand, in part, that alot of the arguement I'm seeing come from you, Glass, Big and others are in response to the many critics of Obama's health care reform efforts and not all of them are directed at what I've personally posted...but...
I am a little annoyed that I keep getting responses that seem to indicate that I don't believe ANY reform is necessary.
I fully agree with you that the above linked information shows the dirty side of the industry. But our efforts, in my opinion, should not equate to the 'cure the disease by killing the patient.'
Let me be clear. YES, we need to change the current system. I agree with Obama 100% on this. (I never thought I'd type that. ) But it's the HOW that I worry about.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Thanks you! SF you spelled it out in a nut shell.
The Government will also force private insurance companies to provide coverage for abortions.
Lock, I have to be honest with you, I don't see that as being a major issue in this.
Here's why.
My personal belief is that abortion should only be used in the cases of incest, rape, or where the life of the mother is in danger. Period.
But that's all it is, my personal beliefs. I feel it is inapropriate for a medical procedure to be denied someone based on those beliefs as they may not share them. I believe that they should have the right to choose for themselves...and carry the consequences of said choices.
Sooner or later society in general will decide the 'human line,' where the fetal tissue gains 'humanhood.' Until that happens, abortions will be held as a choice and not the potential homicide many feel it to be.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: no new policies will be extended that do not meet the exhanges regulations.
correct.
however, the insurance plan(s) that the congress persons enjoy already has such an exchange rule. guess what? there are plenty of competing companies.
they choose form a set of policies that meets the criteria.
one of the rules in that exchange is no existing condition exclusions.
in essence? the Congress is TRYING to extend the same coverage they have to everybody...
that is not how the IBD and fox friends present it tho is it?
Wow. Where to begin with this...
Their risk pool is finite, Glass. And they can charge whatever the Congress is willing to spend. I would love to see the premiums that are charged for said policies.
The current discussion is seeking to create a nearly INFINITE risk by not allowing incureres to deny coverage based on pre-exisiting and not allowing them to offset said risk.
IP: Logged |
but keep in mind that trying to decide between all their choices is a daunting task. most people (as i understand it ) choose Blue Cross Blue Sheild, and even they have several levels of coverage too.
in MS? there's about 15 to choose from.
each year they have "open season" and you can change your policy during open season...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
But that's all it is, my personal beliefs. I feel it is inapropriate for a medical procedure to be denied someone based on those beliefs as they may not share them. I believe that they should have the right to choose for themselves...and carry the consequences of said choices.
Sooner or later society in general will decide the 'human line,' where the fetal tissue gains 'humanhood.' Until that happens, abortions will be held as a choice and not the potential homicide many feel it to be.
well said. people do carry those choices.
i can even see how some elements that oppose this now, would welcome the opportunity to have a chance in the future at banning all abortions by making them unavailable in govt run health care after everybody is on it....
the sword always cuts both ways.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Now, I have a gripe to air...
I understand, in part, that alot of the arguement I'm seeing come from you, Glass, Big and others are in response to the many critics of Obama's health care reform efforts and not all of them are directed at what I've personally posted...but...
I am a little annoyed that I keep getting responses that seem to indicate that I don't believe ANY reform is necessary.
I fully agree with you that the above linked information shows the dirty side of the industry. But our efforts, in my opinion, should not equate to the 'cure the disease by killing the patient.'
Let me be clear. YES, we need to change the current system. I agree with Obama 100% on this. (I never thought I'd type that. ) But it's the HOW that I worry about.
what i'm "arguing" against here is that we are seeing a massive propaganda campaign.
it's good that you are able to define your concerns clearly.
people are being encourage en masse to not seek answers. they are going kinda crazy.
when the concerns were first raised in the IBD article? i couldn't answer them, it took me quite awhile to figure out what the answer was, but when i did? i was kinda angry cuz it's blatant misinformation.
these so-called death panels are a benefit in medicaid designed to PAY YOUR DOCTOR for providing counseling for end of life decisions. they aren't govt panels. they are a new service that the doctor can provide and be paid moeny to do.
yet i see fox and friends and other s showing actuarial tables and scaring people into thinking the Govt will set up a panel to choose who lives and who dies.
those decisions are already being made every day in places like Kaiser and other HMO's.
there is also a system like that inplace already for organ transplanting... but it's doctors in most cases that are on the panel.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Big, as far as the IBD article, see above answer to Glass.
quote:I do agree that the paragraph needs to be reworded and clarified and I will say as much to my congressman. Good SF! Now we are really talking.
And yet, worded as quoted, that is how Pelosi was pushing it through the House. And this is what has many conservatives (note the lack of use of Rep\Dem) concerned. This wording (and others in the bill) only has one of two possible excuses for their vaguery\ambiguity.
1) The authors are sadly lacking in skill\knowledge of how to clearly delineate their intended objectives.
or
2) The authors fully INTENDED it to be vague to allow for maximum manipulation after the law was passed. The wanted it to be ambiguous to allow them to sell it as one thing and then rule with it from another interpretation.
Which do you truly believe?
Once again I will say this SF...there is no comprehensive bill created yet. It is still very much in the draft stages. In fact, there are 5 different health reform bills in the house right now that have to be merged together before a vote. Then the senate gets in on the action and creates their own bill. Then they negotiate a final bill. It is early to be assigning blame to any individuals they are still in the positional process and haven't gotten to the main editing yet.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[More Crap]](graemlins/morecrap.png)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) But it's the HOW that I worry about.
