Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by perdition(troy no, see bipartisan ship isn't republicans rolling over and supporting what the democrats propose. it's two groups working together on a bill, not one group shutting the other one out of closed door meetings that the jist of the bill is being written in. there is a difference between bipartisan ship and doing whatever the democrats decide to do.

The damn thing has already been de-fanged to the point that insurance companies actually like it, what else could the republicans want?

Originally Posted by Snake2715 Probably an APS ordered by them attached to your SS#. They can pull up RX info as well. Think of it as a drivers license # but this one is health related. I mean a small comment like your back hurt that day, or your depressed due to the crappy weather, those can stick with you if the doctor notes them and puts them into your file.

Exactly, something small turns into something huge when insurance companies see it. You're right about the prescriptions, stuff that i didn't even remember. They shouldn't have access to that stuff. What if you piss off someone who just happens to work at an insurance company, what stops them from checking out your medical history?

Originally Posted by UncleBob Myke: Can you come up with any good reason to prohibit individuals from purchasing insurance from another state?

Don't try to dodge my question and ask another one. Aristotle you ain't. What do you feel is so self-evident about allowing interstate purchase of health care that will cause it to reduce health insurance premiums and/or assist those with pre-existing conditions?

How will such a change create a more desirable health care system? It's substantially less intuitive and crystal clear than you seem to give it credit for.

Myke - I'm not asking if you think it would be beneficial - I'm asking what reason you have to be against it. It's a fair question.

Step up to the plate for once Bob.

Originally Posted by fatherofcaitlyn Yes, the Rs don't want to be blamed for anything going wrong and Ds want to be able to blame the Rs if something goes wrong. That happened with Bush I's tax increase. In the meantime, more people will die from having no healthcare and everybody will forget the two wars going on.

100% correct. Republicans are happy that they can all vote against the bill, and do so with strong public support for their position on the issue. Of course they are. They want no part of the cesspool created by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi behind closed doors with their lobbyist friends, and more power to them. It was really made easy for them since the Democrats never really tried to work with them at all in the House, and only Max Baucus tried (and mostly failed) in the Senate.

Originally Posted by mykevermin That's absurd. Abortion's out. Public option's out. Individual mandate's out. Yet not a single Republican would even entertain the idea of voting to end the filibuster, let alone the final bill itself. You act like the original version of the bill hasn't changed at all throughout the process, and I don't know what kinda in' Candy Land you live in if you think that this is the case. Given how many fatal concessions to the bill happened between its proposal and this week, what the else would you want taken from it before you would find it crossed the threshold of "bipartisan"? The Republicans legislatively get what they want (a neutered, toothless bill) and they get politically what they want (to stay true blue to their dipshit conservative base, since they get what they want and don't have to vote for it). I mean, seriously. Your entire argument is premised on the Democrats unwillingness to make concessions on the bill. Which is contradicted by the real ing world. Sometimes I don't know why I bother with you.

Myke, the concessions were made to moderate Democrats, not Republicans.

1. Abortion = Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson (among numerous others) didn't want federal funding for abortion.

2. Public option = Joe Lieberman and some moderate Democrats refused to vote for a bill including it.

Sure, Republicans are just about unanimously opposed to those things, but Democrats could easily pass the bill without them (they do have a large majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, plus the presidency, remember?). The reason they made the changes was to get reluctant members on their own side of the aisle to vote for the bill.

The real trick will be to get a bill out of conference that satisfies both the Senate Democratic Caucus and the House Democratic Caucus. That is very tricky as there are a lot of differences between the Senate and House bills. And there's always the chance that enough members will get cold feet (it would only take a few in either body; the House passed its bill by only 5 votes, and one of those was a Republican) with public opinion ever more strongly against what is being done.

On a related note, I found this most interesting (and unbelievably unconstitutional):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...ure_cong_1.asp

Originally Posted by Reid health-care bill it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

Prince et al are for lack of a better term, a pack of liars right now.

There is no way anyone displaying any hint of honesty can say that Democrats did not try in good faith and with a counter productive amount of energy to include Republicans in reform.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Myke - I'm not asking if you think it would be beneficial - I'm asking what reason you have to be against it. It's a fair question.

I'm not at your beck and call, and if you aren't compelled to answer a question I pose in response to what I consider to be a naively-thought-through solution to a massive national-level social problem, then don't you dare expect me to answer your tripe.

elprincipe, the concessions they made were to Democrats, but they were concessions many Republicans want. Yet they still chose to filibuster, and they still choose to not vote for the bill. They're getting what they wanted, therefore in the purpose of biparitsanship, should vote for it. Yet they put party symbolism ahead of country. Like the 30 Republican senators who voted against Franken's rape amendment several weeks back. They don't give a fig about the well-being of the country unless you're among the power elite. Gang rape deserves less protection than Halliburton. Likewise, a health care bill that reflects concessions they demanded should be something they vote for.

And the presidency is largely irrelevant in these stages of the legislative process, as he doesn't get to vote. And god knows Republicans have more to gain politically by standing up to anything he says. They'd get more votes for denying that the sky is blue, provided Obama made such a proclamation, than they would in agreeing with Obama. They'd be labeled a "Terrorist sympathizer" by Rush Limbaugh and a "closet socialist" by Glenn Beck.

Originally Posted by elprincipe On a related note, I found this most interesting (and unbelievably unconstitutional): http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...ure_cong_1.asp

Wow. That's amazingly interesting. I mean, I know government doesn't give up power once it has it, but... ouch...

The rule can be changed, it takes a super majority but it can be changed.

Originally Posted by mykevermin I'm not at your beck and call, and if you aren't compelled to answer a question I pose in response to what I consider to be a naively-thought-through solution to a massive national-level social problem, then don't you dare expect me to answer your tripe.

Myke - I hope you aren't simple enough to think that any "one" action would be a solution to fix, in your words, a "massive national-level social problem".

I don't think simply opening up the Health Insurance market, in and of itself, will fix everything. It needs to be enacted as a part of a total solution.

All I keep hearing from you is "No, no, no, that won't work, No!" (it's like you're a Republican or something...). I'm interested in hearing why, in your opinion, this action, either alone (not intended to fix everything, but fix some things) or as part of a major overhaul (either the current bills going though or something else) would be something you're against.

You don't have to answer my question. No one is forcing you. You can stay silent, post rants, post links, whatever you want to do.

But to answer your question - and again, I emphasize that I don't believe this one simple act will fix everything - but I do believe opening up the market to more competition would only be a good thing, as you, yourself pointed out with your "Ma Bell" reference. If I don't like the carriers that do business in my state, I should be free to choose from other businesses. This would give me a larger selection of providers to choose from and allow me to find a carrier that suits my own needs. For example, if I live in a state that requires my health insurance to cover drug rehabilitation, there is no need for me to pay for such coverage - so I should be able to shop for coverage elsewhere that doesn't force me to pay for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0uxURKIFqU

I kinda wish this is fake.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Perhaps, as a doc, you can explain to me how that would change anything. Doesn't Humana exist in Mass? BC/BS? Such an argument about "interstate commerce" overlooks that the major players in health insurance are large, wealthy corporations that do business in virtually every state. They have no incentive to change how they compete. This "market will resolve itself" argument seems so full of helplessly naive optimism, in my view. The market doesn't resolve itself against monopolies without government intervention. Do you think Ma Bell wouldn't still be in business if they weren't busted up by the federal government?

BC/BS is run completely differently in each state, they are not one or the same. They just co-opt the brand name, so to speak. In effect, they are separate insurance companies. Even if they weren't, why deny choice? For example, why shut out the East coast from access to a large, well run insurance coverage from Kaiser for example?

So it makes perfect sense to me that in order to generate market competition, you want to allow people to have as much choice as possible. That's why I don't understand why there would be any opposition to this. Perhaps as someone against this, you could explain why this would be objectionable. You last statement would seem to support opening up access to other insurance companies across state lines, in effect you would be "breaking the monopoly." If the federal government is going force people to buy insurance and will provide subsidies to do so, it would be in everyone's best interest to keep premiums as low as possible.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Myke - I'm not asking if you think it would be beneficial - I'm asking what reason you have to be against it. It's a fair question.

I'll help with this deadlock.

You answered your own question. If a course of action isn't going to improve the situation, then it can be deferred until the courses of action that will improve the situation have been exhausted.

For example, a public option versus buying insurance across state lines (BIASL). In a public option, the uninsurables such as Joliet Jake simply get some measure of coverage. In BIASL, they get to apply for insurance (and probably denied) to hundreds of companies instead of tens of companies. BIASL helps people like Joliet Jake realize he can't receive insurance anywhere and receive more paper for starting fires, but it doesn't cause anymore coverage.

I'm sure somebody has pointed this out, but BIASL will simply allow all insurance companies to relocate to state with laws more in their favor much in the same way that most credit card companies relocated to Delaware.

Originally Posted by dopa345 BC/BS is run completely differently in each state, they are not one or the same.

Does BC/BS have claims processing centers in 50 states?

Originally Posted by dopa345 If the federal government is going force people to buy insurance and will provide subsidies to do so, it would be in everyone's best interest to keep premiums as low as possible.

That would be a public option.

Originally Posted by fatherofcaitlyn Does BC/BS have claims processing centers in 50 states?

From a quick google, it looks like they have multiple claim processing centers in some states, and several states came up. So I'm guessing that the answer is that they do probably have at least one in each state.

It would be too hard to have one for the whole country (or a few in each region), given how policies vary from state to state. Too difficult to train employees to know a bunch of different policies for various states.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 From a quick google, it looks like they have multiple claim processing centers in some states, and several states came up. So I'm guessing that the answer is that they do probably have at least one in each state. It would be too hard to have one for the whole country (or a few in each region), given how policies vary from state to state. Too difficult to train employees to know a bunch of different policies for various states.

My wife handles people enrolling in Medicare for every state without traveling outside of Louisville.

EDIT: I'm going to lean towards BC/BS being completely different in different states as how McDonald's "restaurants" are completely different in different states.

Originally Posted by mykevermin I'm not at your beck and call, and if you aren't compelled to answer a question I pose in response to what I consider to be a naively-thought-through solution to a massive national-level social problem, then don't you dare expect me to answer your tripe. elprincipe, the concessions they made were to Democrats, but they were concessions many Republicans want. Yet they still chose to filibuster, and they still choose to not vote for the bill. They're getting what they wanted, therefore in the purpose of biparitsanship, should vote for it. Yet they put party symbolism ahead of country. Like the 30 Republican senators who voted against Franken's rape amendment several weeks back. They don't give a fig about the well-being of the country unless you're among the power elite. Gang rape deserves less protection than Halliburton. Likewise, a health care bill that reflects concessions they demanded should be something they vote for. And the presidency is largely irrelevant in these stages of the legislative process, as he doesn't get to vote. And god knows Republicans have more to gain politically by standing up to anything he says. They'd get more votes for denying that the sky is blue, provided Obama made such a proclamation, than they would in agreeing with Obama. They'd be labeled a "Terrorist sympathizer" by Rush Limbaugh and a "closet socialist" by Glenn Beck.

Myke, from your past few posts you seem to really enjoy charging your high-horse right into the Blame-the-other-party battlefield. Does public opinion not matter to you? Or are you so far past the Democratic party's sphincter that you truly believe, like the Dem leadership, that Washington elite know what's best for us, even if the country is against it?

Public opinion doesn't matter to me because I believe the public to be largely (1) opinionated and (2) when tested, wholly uninformed about the things they have opinions on.

I'm what you might call anti-Machiavellian. As opposed to you, who seem to be all about Machiavellianism - support what the public desires no matter the absurdity or cost.

I thought Machiavellian involved lying to the public.