fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
You have to understand what a last harvest is.
Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting
without a teleprompter obama is by a far the most eloquent straight-talker in the room, i really dont get why the right pretends the man can't talk. he can talk. he just has no balls.
without a teleprompter obama is by a far the most eloquent straight-talker in the room, i really dont get why the right pretends the man can't talk. he can talk. he just has no balls.
[quote name='Koggit']http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting
obama is by a far the most eloquent straight-talker in the room, i really dont get why the right pretends the man can't talk. he can talk. he just has balls.[/QUOTE]
fixed.
obama is by a far the most eloquent straight-talker in the room, i really dont get why the right pretends the man can't talk. he can talk. he just has balls.[/QUOTE]
fixed.
I actually think Grassley & Boehner might be tied for the most partisan talking point filled comments. Enzi's & Lamar's were the best from the Republicans side (so far) and I thought Durbin's and Kent Conrad's were good from the Democrats side.
EDIT: add Iceman McConnell to Grassley & Boehner's group.
Obama apparently told McCain 'John, the elections over'.
At least McCain has health insurance, to help pay for his burn treatment.
EDIT: add Iceman McConnell to Grassley & Boehner's group.
Obama apparently told McCain 'John, the elections over'.
At least McCain has health insurance, to help pay for his burn treatment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Only caught the last 90 minutes or so.
Seemed pretty pointless with just the same talking points on both sides we've heard for ages.
Only positive I took away (from again only catching the end) is that they want progress by the end of March, and it sounds like pushing it through with 51 votes if they can't compromise and get to 60 may be back on the table.
Seemed pretty pointless with just the same talking points on both sides we've heard for ages.
Only positive I took away (from again only catching the end) is that they want progress by the end of March, and it sounds like pushing it through with 51 votes if they can't compromise and get to 60 may be back on the table.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Obama pretty much ended with a challenge for Congress to "shit or get off the pot."
Good to hear.
Good to hear.
There was some good stuff, I missed maybe the first 2 hours or so, I think I started watching it around 12. When they just used some talking points Obama at least called them on it so it wasn't just left at that. We'll see how much of an effect it has on both popular opinion and the passage of the bill.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Obama pretty much ended with a challenge for Congress to "shit or get off the pot."[/QUOTE]
A billion points if he says, "Are you gonna smoke that thing or making love to it?"
A billion points if he says, "Are you gonna smoke that thing or making love to it?"
One question/worry I have though is.....Is it really worth the political fall out to push the bill--in it's current form or something similar--through?
If it was a full on national health care bill with a strong public option I'd say hell yes. Force it through and if it costs dems both houses and makes Obama a one termer, go for it as that's worthwhile change.
But with this gimped bill, I'm not sure it's worth the consequences of being back under republican majorities and having a republican president in Jan 2013, which would probably be the fall out--at least the former. Things might settled down again before the 2012 presidential election.
If it was a full on national health care bill with a strong public option I'd say hell yes. Force it through and if it costs dems both houses and makes Obama a one termer, go for it as that's worthwhile change.
But with this gimped bill, I'm not sure it's worth the consequences of being back under republican majorities and having a republican president in Jan 2013, which would probably be the fall out--at least the former. Things might settled down again before the 2012 presidential election.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, that's my worry. If they're going to go that route, they need to say 
it and put a strong public option back in as long as they can get the 51 votes for that.
I just don't see this gimped bill being worth that as it will kill any chance of changes in other areas.[/QUOTE]
They can't put a public option back in w/51 votes. What they could do is have the house pass the senate bill, then have the senate using reconciliation modify some parts of the senate bill the house did not like (i.e. excise tax on "cadillac plans"). Since the public option never passed at all in the senate w/60 votes (unlike the house), there would be no feasible way to get it in a 51 vote bill.
IMO at best you'd be looking at a slightly modified senate bill w/ reconciliation, and at the likely cost of losing both the senate and the house by 2012, possibly even the presidency.
it and put a strong public option back in as long as they can get the 51 votes for that.I just don't see this gimped bill being worth that as it will kill any chance of changes in other areas.[/QUOTE]
They can't put a public option back in w/51 votes. What they could do is have the house pass the senate bill, then have the senate using reconciliation modify some parts of the senate bill the house did not like (i.e. excise tax on "cadillac plans"). Since the public option never passed at all in the senate w/60 votes (unlike the house), there would be no feasible way to get it in a 51 vote bill.
IMO at best you'd be looking at a slightly modified senate bill w/ reconciliation, and at the likely cost of losing both the senate and the house by 2012, possibly even the presidency.
I think the Democrats have been called out on their hypocrisy, doing things the Republicans are doing now (cept related to judicial nominees and such), complaining about the filibuster and such.
However in the end they got a lot of those things through, with reconciliation. So Democrats, suck it up and do what Republicans did. With a public option. Sounds like a toilet seat at the train station doesnt it? Why not medicare for all...ah this we've had this discussion. Old people are going to die quickly, right Dr. Coburn?
However in the end they got a lot of those things through, with reconciliation. So Democrats, suck it up and do what Republicans did. With a public option. Sounds like a toilet seat at the train station doesnt it? Why not medicare for all...ah
this we've had this discussion. Old people are going to die quickly, right Dr. Coburn?The political fallout from letting the bill die will be worse than getting this admittedly crappy bill through.
Also this is pretty much it for years, after Republicans killed Clinton's attempt it took more than a decade for another whack at it.
The bill has some good things in it and there is plenty to build off of.
Also this is pretty much it for years, after Republicans killed Clinton's attempt it took more than a decade for another whack at it.
The bill has some good things in it and there is plenty to build off of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
Don’t take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded, with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the number of uninsured Americans wouldn’t change much, “the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law.” But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now.
Don’t take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded, with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the number of uninsured Americans wouldn’t change much, “the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law.” But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-right-wingers-even-same-species-as.html[/QUOTE]
I have to start listening to Limbaugh. I'm trying to lose weight. Disgust might suppress my appetite.
I have to start listening to Limbaugh. I'm trying to lose weight. Disgust might suppress my appetite.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']One question/worry I have though is.....Is it really worth the political fall out to push the bill--in it's current form or something similar--through?
If it was a full on national health care bill with a strong public option I'd say hell yes. Force it through and if it costs dems both houses and makes Obama a one termer, go for it as that's worthwhile change.
But with this gimped bill, I'm not sure it's worth the consequences of being back under republican majorities and having a republican president in Jan 2013, which would probably be the fall out--at least the former. Things might settled down again before the 2012 presidential election.[/QUOTE]
it's a little late to be worried about political fallout. I say force the dems into ramming it through, taking heavy casualties in politics. Essentially allowed at some point a republican majority again which can then turn around and force bills through and the dems can choke on them.
And maybe even some attempts at rollback or changing policies that the "democrat healthcare bill" affects.
If it was a full on national health care bill with a strong public option I'd say hell yes. Force it through and if it costs dems both houses and makes Obama a one termer, go for it as that's worthwhile change.
But with this gimped bill, I'm not sure it's worth the consequences of being back under republican majorities and having a republican president in Jan 2013, which would probably be the fall out--at least the former. Things might settled down again before the 2012 presidential election.[/QUOTE]
it's a little late to be worried about political fallout. I say force the dems into ramming it through, taking heavy casualties in politics. Essentially allowed at some point a republican majority again which can then turn around and force bills through and the dems can choke on them.
And maybe even some attempts at rollback or changing policies that the "democrat healthcare bill" affects.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have to start listening to Limbaugh. I'm trying to lose weight. Disgust might suppress my appetite.[/QUOTE]
I was just thinking about how Republicans just kept repeating "Best Healthcare in the World" ad nauseum, the example they used was of incredibly rich people coming here for surgeries.
So yeah we have the best healthcare for millionaires on the planet.
America Yeah.
I was just thinking about how Republicans just kept repeating "Best Healthcare in the World" ad nauseum, the example they used was of incredibly rich people coming here for surgeries.
So yeah we have the best healthcare for millionaires on the planet.
America
Yeah.speedracer
Banned
A letter to the president from Boehner and Cantor:
Then when Obama releases his plan 4 days before:
Your modern GOP.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I feel like this image should be used more in the modern political discourse.
[quote name='speedracer']A letter to the president from Boehner and Cantor:
Then when Obama releases his plan 4 days before:
Your modern GOP.[/QUOTE]
They spent months carting around copies of the bill in a wheelbarrow and then complain about Obama's suggestions for coming in about 15 pages.
They are children.
The only question is whether they are really that stupid or just evil.
Then when Obama releases his plan 4 days before:
Your modern GOP.[/QUOTE]
They spent months carting around copies of the bill in a wheelbarrow and then complain about Obama's suggestions for coming in about 15 pages.
They are children.
The only question is whether they are really that stupid or just evil.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/hayek-on-health-care.php
This one threw me for a bit of a loop.
This one threw me for a bit of a loop.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Well, Hayek is clearly a Marxist.
what?
what?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Eric Cantor was on MtP this morning repeating the GOP's arguments on health care. When pressed for an actual platform for health care, it came down to two things:
1) tort reform
2) across-state-insurance purchases
Now, let's set aside for a moment that the CBO says cost savings from tort reform would be modest (around a 3% decline in health care costs, to say nothing of the fact that this debate is centered around the accelerated year-over-year *increase* in costs, making a tiny one-time decline so moot it's silly).
I want to ask about the logic of interstate insurance sales. The idea I keep hearing is akin to this great options = greater competition = the great wheel of capitalism keeps turning and costs go down.
Ok, fine. People will seek out the care that they want and at the rate they're willing to pay for. Great.
How will this solve the issues of cost of care for anybody but the healthy though? I see healthy people all running to the state with the cheapest insurance available to them. Some of you in here have asked for as much. This state, by virtue of maintaining low costs, will have to deny somebody - remember, mandatory insurance is not a part of the GOP plan.
So who gets kept out of the clubhouse? The high risk folks: smokers, overweight, preexisting conditions, long-term treatments, cancer patients, etc. The very people for whom the current crushing burden of the cost of medical care is a problem. Without low-risk (i.e. profitable) persons to offset the cost of care for these sick-people-loss-leaders, there won't be many/any insurance companies willing to take them on. I foresee an outcome of interstate competition where the very people who are harmed under the current health care system will fare worse as a result of the GOP's proposal of interstate commerce.
The logic of interstate competition is based not on a well-thought-through policy analysis but by somebody who buys into the idealist philosophy of capitalism - that the market will always work, and will always work best. I don't see any possible outcome but a cluster effect where low-risk people get as far away from high-risk people as possible - after all, avoiding them leads to a reduced premium. So the high-risk high-cost folks end up high and dry.
So, if you are someone who supports the idea of interstate competition - thrust, ruined, or anyone else who despises the Democrat plan versions House or Senate - I'm beggin' ya, explain the logic to me that interstate competition leads to a beneficial outcome for all patients. How do high-risk insurance holders benefit from this?
1) tort reform
2) across-state-insurance purchases
Now, let's set aside for a moment that the CBO says cost savings from tort reform would be modest (around a 3% decline in health care costs, to say nothing of the fact that this debate is centered around the accelerated year-over-year *increase* in costs, making a tiny one-time decline so moot it's silly).
I want to ask about the logic of interstate insurance sales. The idea I keep hearing is akin to this great options = greater competition = the great wheel of capitalism keeps turning and costs go down.
Ok, fine. People will seek out the care that they want and at the rate they're willing to pay for. Great.
How will this solve the issues of cost of care for anybody but the healthy though? I see healthy people all running to the state with the cheapest insurance available to them. Some of you in here have asked for as much. This state, by virtue of maintaining low costs, will have to deny somebody - remember, mandatory insurance is not a part of the GOP plan.
So who gets kept out of the clubhouse? The high risk folks: smokers, overweight, preexisting conditions, long-term treatments, cancer patients, etc. The very people for whom the current crushing burden of the cost of medical care is a problem. Without low-risk (i.e. profitable) persons to offset the cost of care for these sick-people-loss-leaders, there won't be many/any insurance companies willing to take them on. I foresee an outcome of interstate competition where the very people who are harmed under the current health care system will fare worse as a result of the GOP's proposal of interstate commerce.
The logic of interstate competition is based not on a well-thought-through policy analysis but by somebody who buys into the idealist philosophy of capitalism - that the market will always work, and will always work best. I don't see any possible outcome but a cluster effect where low-risk people get as far away from high-risk people as possible - after all, avoiding them leads to a reduced premium. So the high-risk high-cost folks end up high and dry.
So, if you are someone who supports the idea of interstate competition - thrust, ruined, or anyone else who despises the Democrat plan versions House or Senate - I'm beggin' ya, explain the logic to me that interstate competition leads to a beneficial outcome for all patients. How do high-risk insurance holders benefit from this?
Well, to be fair to those guys, I've not seen any of them say they're opposed to reforming insurance to stop denials for pre-existing conditions etc.
I think even a lot of the republican's are OK with that (did Cantor say he wasn't, or just not bring it up as he didn't want to bring up any area where the dems and repubs are in agreement?).
They just don't want a public option, national pool of providers etc. and think a free market of interstate competition can get prices down, along with tort reform. I don't think many are opposed to deal with problems in the system like being denied coverage etc.
I think even a lot of the republican's are OK with that (did Cantor say he wasn't, or just not bring it up as he didn't want to bring up any area where the dems and repubs are in agreement?).
They just don't want a public option, national pool of providers etc. and think a free market of interstate competition can get prices down, along with tort reform. I don't think many are opposed to deal with problems in the system like being denied coverage etc.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I've not seen any of them say they're opposed to reforming insurance to stop denials for pre-existing conditions etc.[/quote]
As dumb as Republicans are they aren't quite that dumb.
Marketing and framing is where Republicans are kings anyway.
It is more than fair to say by now that they do not give a.
Even if they were to honestly believe all that (and if there is one thing I learned over the years it is treating someones argument in good faith is earned) it doesn't mean anything since they are unequivocally wrong and this was explained to them.
They are opposed to anyone getting anything that isn't either a corporation (preferably a donor) or a extremely weatlhy person (preferably a donor). What measures exactly, did the GOP take to help the uninsured or those with insurance squeezed by the system while they were in charge?
As dumb as Republicans are they aren't quite that dumb.
Marketing and framing is where Republicans are kings anyway.
It is more than fair to say by now that they do not give a
.Even if they were to honestly believe all that (and if there is one thing I learned over the years it is treating someones argument in good faith is earned) it doesn't mean anything since they are unequivocally wrong and this was explained to them.
They are opposed to anyone getting anything that isn't either a corporation (preferably a donor) or a extremely weatlhy person (preferably a donor). What measures exactly, did the GOP take to help the uninsured or those with insurance squeezed by the system while they were in charge?
As you say, I don't think they care per se. I just think there not opposed to the reforms to stop coverage denials for pre-existing conditions etc.
But they're not going to talk about that as they're going to focus on being obstructionist and not acknowledge any compromises they're willing to make, while they keep spouting the interstate options and tort reform bullshit as the panacea to the insurance problem.
But they're not going to talk about that as they're going to focus on being obstructionist and not acknowledge any compromises they're willing to make, while they keep spouting the interstate options and tort reform bullshit as the panacea to the insurance problem.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, to be fair to those guys, I've not seen any of them say they're opposed to reforming insurance to stop denials for pre-existing conditions etc.
I think even a lot of the republican's are OK with that (did Cantor say he wasn't, or just not bring it up as he didn't want to bring up any area where the dems and repubs are in agreement?).
They just don't want a public option, national pool of providers etc. and think a free market of interstate competition can get prices down, along with tort reform. I don't think many are opposed to deal with problems in the system like being denied coverage etc.[/QUOTE]
I think the fact that we're not certain whether or not denying preexisting conditions is an important aspect of interstate competition to Republicans is emblematic of how vapid the GOP's solutions are. They haven't elaborated on the benefits or conditions of "freeing up the market," they've merely asserted that it stands that greater competition means lower prices.
Moreover, forcing insurance companies to take on high-risk pools is contrary to free-market principles, and won't reduce insurance costs. Could increase premiums since you have a whole caste of insurance "untouchables" in the current can-deny system who will be forced to be taken on by companies.
Worst of all is that this free-market pro-market ideal could easily be subverted. If I'm an insurance company, I'd just offer low yet profitable premiums to low-risk healthy folks and price the high-risk pool out of joining. Yeah, I'll offer you insurance, but your premiums are so high - higher than before - so that you will look elsewhere for insurance. I didn't deny them, they *chose* (coughcough) to take their business elsewhere. And you can't regulate the price of premiums relative to risk, unless you want people to debate on news channels, without joking, whether or not you're a socialist.
The GOP plan is a disaster, it's poorly thought through, and I see no possibility how it will expand coverage and lower costs at the same time. I guess at this point the best way to expose that is to discuss the logical absurdity of what aspects of reform they exalt as crucial.
I think even a lot of the republican's are OK with that (did Cantor say he wasn't, or just not bring it up as he didn't want to bring up any area where the dems and repubs are in agreement?).
They just don't want a public option, national pool of providers etc. and think a free market of interstate competition can get prices down, along with tort reform. I don't think many are opposed to deal with problems in the system like being denied coverage etc.[/QUOTE]
I think the fact that we're not certain whether or not denying preexisting conditions is an important aspect of interstate competition to Republicans is emblematic of how vapid the GOP's solutions are. They haven't elaborated on the benefits or conditions of "freeing up the market," they've merely asserted that it stands that greater competition means lower prices.
Moreover, forcing insurance companies to take on high-risk pools is contrary to free-market principles, and won't reduce insurance costs. Could increase premiums since you have a whole caste of insurance "untouchables" in the current can-deny system who will be forced to be taken on by companies.
Worst of all is that this free-market pro-market ideal could easily be subverted. If I'm an insurance company, I'd just offer low yet profitable premiums to low-risk healthy folks and price the high-risk pool out of joining. Yeah, I'll offer you insurance, but your premiums are so high - higher than before - so that you will look elsewhere for insurance. I didn't deny them, they *chose* (coughcough) to take their business elsewhere. And you can't regulate the price of premiums relative to risk, unless you want people to debate on news channels, without joking, whether or not you're a socialist.
The GOP plan is a disaster, it's poorly thought through, and I see no possibility how it will expand coverage and lower costs at the same time. I guess at this point the best way to expose that is to discuss the logical absurdity of what aspects of reform they exalt as crucial.
[quote name='mykevermin']Worst of all is that this free-market pro-market ideal could easily be subverted. If I'm an insurance company, I'd just offer low yet profitable premiums to low-risk healthy folks and price the high-risk pool out of joining.[/QUOTE]
So, lets say if one lives in an area with a high crimerate, that should then be an element of putting someone in a "high risk" category due to the increased likelihood of being shot/mugged/victim of violent crime (which of course would require expensive emergency medical attention), right? On the other hand, someone who lives in an area with lower crimerate should similarly be put in a lower risk category and pay less.
I say if they are going to assess BMI to determine healthcare rates, tax penalties, etc, they better assess everything.
So, lets say if one lives in an area with a high crimerate, that should then be an element of putting someone in a "high risk" category due to the increased likelihood of being shot/mugged/victim of violent crime (which of course would require expensive emergency medical attention), right? On the other hand, someone who lives in an area with lower crimerate should similarly be put in a lower risk category and pay less.
I say if they are going to assess BMI to determine healthcare rates, tax penalties, etc, they better assess everything.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The freedom to dispute ketchup's status as a vegetable for starters.
[quote name='mykevermin']
The GOP plan is a disaster, it's poorly thought through, and I see no possibility how it will expand coverage and lower costs at the same time. I guess at this point the best way to expose that is to discuss the logical absurdity of what aspects of reform they exalt as crucial.[/QUOTE]
Agree 100%.
The only way to expand coverage and lower costs is to have a strong public option.
Otherwise, as you note, the costs of insuring the "'untouchables" will just get passed on to everyone by the insurance companies, and will more than offset any small savings from tort reform and interstate competition.
The only way to keep prices down is to have a public option that's ran as a non-profit that forces private companies to keep rates down and take less profit.
Medical insurance never should have been a for profit enterprise. It should been ran as a non-profit with premiums set at the lowest possible levels to keep the system afloat and to keep cash reserves for unexpected costs in the system etc. Not set up to find ways to make as much money for the insurance companies as possible. Public health shouldn't be a capitalistic enterprise motivated by greed.
The GOP plan is a disaster, it's poorly thought through, and I see no possibility how it will expand coverage and lower costs at the same time. I guess at this point the best way to expose that is to discuss the logical absurdity of what aspects of reform they exalt as crucial.[/QUOTE]
Agree 100%.
The only way to expand coverage and lower costs is to have a strong public option.
Otherwise, as you note, the costs of insuring the "'untouchables" will just get passed on to everyone by the insurance companies, and will more than offset any small savings from tort reform and interstate competition.
The only way to keep prices down is to have a public option that's ran as a non-profit that forces private companies to keep rates down and take less profit.
Medical insurance never should have been a for profit enterprise. It should been ran as a non-profit with premiums set at the lowest possible levels to keep the system afloat and to keep cash reserves for unexpected costs in the system etc. Not set up to find ways to make as much money for the insurance companies as possible. Public health shouldn't be a capitalistic enterprise motivated by greed.
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The only way to keep prices down is to have a public option that's ran as a non-profit that forces private companies to keep rates down and take less profit.
Medical insurance never should have been a for profit enterprise. It should been ran as a non-profit with premiums set at the lowest possible levels to keep the system afloat and to keep cash reserves for unexpected costs in the system etc. Not set up to find ways to make as much money for the insurance companies as possible. Public health shouldn't be a capitalistic enterprise motivated by greed.[/QUOTE]
"According to the most recent Fortune 500 rankings, health insurers are not even among the top-30 United States industries in profit-margin. Health insurers rank 35th, with a profit-margin of just 2.2 percent — less than one-fifth the profit-margin of railroads. None of the ten largest American health insurers made profits of more than 4.5 percent, and two of them lost money. Health insurers’ collective profit-margin is less than one-eighth that of drug companies and less than one-seventh that of companies that sell medical products or equipment. It’s also less than that of medical facilities. Yet when was the last time you heard President Obama rail against greedy hospitals?
The combined profits of America’s ten largest health insurers are $8.3 billion. That’s less than two-thirds of the profits of Wal-Mart alone, less than half of the profits of General Electric alone, and less than one-seventh of what Medicare loses each year to fraud. Health insurers collectively have one-eighth the profit-margin of McDonald’s or Coke, one-ninth that of eBay, and one-fifteenth that of Merck.
Why don’t these much more profitable companies or industries need to be taken over by the federal government? Why don’t they need to be subjected to something like President Obama’s proposed Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would be run by the same U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that already loses $60 billion of taxpayer money to Medicare fraud each year? (Not that I want to give the Obama administration any ideas.)
In all, the combined profits of the 14 largest American health insurers (the ones who crack the Fortune 1000) are $8.7 billion. That’s less than 0.4 percent, or 1/250th, of overall U.S. health-care costs, which are $2.5 trillion.
Anyone but an ideologue could plainly see that insurance profits aren’t the problem. The problem is having a health-care system with too many middlemen (government or otherwise); too little competition and choice; and too little opportunity for Americans to control their own health-care dollars, shop for value, or even see prices.
If you can’t identify the problem, you aren’t likely to stumble upon the solution. Maybe that’s why the Congressional Budget Office says that, under Obamacare, which would cost $2.5 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023), the average family’s insurance premiums in the individual market would increase by $2,100 in relation to current law — while under the House Republican health bill, which would cost $61 billion (just 2 percent as much as Obamacare), the average premiums would be reduced by 5 to 8 percent.
President Obama likes to say that the Republicans don’t have any ideas, but the House GOP bill would clearly make the American health-care system better. The small bill would make it better still. Obamacare would raise nationwide health costs, siphon billions out of barely solvent Medicare and spend them elsewhere, cut Medicare Advantage benefits by an average of $21,000 per beneficiary in its real first decade, politicize medicine, reduce liberty, raise taxes, cost jobs, and inevitably lead to rationed care...
"
Read more + sources.....
http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Njk4NmQ3YmI1N2QzMWFjMzFiY2ZlMmVjNGUxZTNiMGM=
The only way to keep prices down is to have a public option that's ran as a non-profit that forces private companies to keep rates down and take less profit.
Medical insurance never should have been a for profit enterprise. It should been ran as a non-profit with premiums set at the lowest possible levels to keep the system afloat and to keep cash reserves for unexpected costs in the system etc. Not set up to find ways to make as much money for the insurance companies as possible. Public health shouldn't be a capitalistic enterprise motivated by greed.[/QUOTE]
"According to the most recent Fortune 500 rankings, health insurers are not even among the top-30 United States industries in profit-margin. Health insurers rank 35th, with a profit-margin of just 2.2 percent — less than one-fifth the profit-margin of railroads. None of the ten largest American health insurers made profits of more than 4.5 percent, and two of them lost money. Health insurers’ collective profit-margin is less than one-eighth that of drug companies and less than one-seventh that of companies that sell medical products or equipment. It’s also less than that of medical facilities. Yet when was the last time you heard President Obama rail against greedy hospitals?
The combined profits of America’s ten largest health insurers are $8.3 billion. That’s less than two-thirds of the profits of Wal-Mart alone, less than half of the profits of General Electric alone, and less than one-seventh of what Medicare loses each year to fraud. Health insurers collectively have one-eighth the profit-margin of McDonald’s or Coke, one-ninth that of eBay, and one-fifteenth that of Merck.
Why don’t these much more profitable companies or industries need to be taken over by the federal government? Why don’t they need to be subjected to something like President Obama’s proposed Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would be run by the same U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that already loses $60 billion of taxpayer money to Medicare fraud each year? (Not that I want to give the Obama administration any ideas.)
In all, the combined profits of the 14 largest American health insurers (the ones who crack the Fortune 1000) are $8.7 billion. That’s less than 0.4 percent, or 1/250th, of overall U.S. health-care costs, which are $2.5 trillion.
Anyone but an ideologue could plainly see that insurance profits aren’t the problem. The problem is having a health-care system with too many middlemen (government or otherwise); too little competition and choice; and too little opportunity for Americans to control their own health-care dollars, shop for value, or even see prices.
If you can’t identify the problem, you aren’t likely to stumble upon the solution. Maybe that’s why the Congressional Budget Office says that, under Obamacare, which would cost $2.5 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023), the average family’s insurance premiums in the individual market would increase by $2,100 in relation to current law — while under the House Republican health bill, which would cost $61 billion (just 2 percent as much as Obamacare), the average premiums would be reduced by 5 to 8 percent.
President Obama likes to say that the Republicans don’t have any ideas, but the House GOP bill would clearly make the American health-care system better. The small bill would make it better still. Obamacare would raise nationwide health costs, siphon billions out of barely solvent Medicare and spend them elsewhere, cut Medicare Advantage benefits by an average of $21,000 per beneficiary in its real first decade, politicize medicine, reduce liberty, raise taxes, cost jobs, and inevitably lead to rationed care...
"
Read more + sources.....
http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Njk4NmQ3YmI1N2QzMWFjMzFiY2ZlMmVjNGUxZTNiMGM=
The difference again is whether or not you view health care as a basic human right.
If you do, then you probably share my view that the top insurance companies shouldn't be making $8.3 Billion profits.
You're right that waste and costs need to come down, but part of that ideally would be a national health care system that worked to make sure every citizen had access to their health care which I view as a basic right, not to make as much profit as they can.
Wal-mart and other companies can make as much profit as they want, as consumerism isn't a basic human right. Consumerism should be a private industry, and should be driven by the market and designed around capitalistic notions of maximizing profit.
Health care should not IMO.
If you do, then you probably share my view that the top insurance companies shouldn't be making $8.3 Billion profits.
You're right that waste and costs need to come down, but part of that ideally would be a national health care system that worked to make sure every citizen had access to their health care which I view as a basic right, not to make as much profit as they can.
Wal-mart and other companies can make as much profit as they want, as consumerism isn't a basic human right. Consumerism should be a private industry, and should be driven by the market and designed around capitalistic notions of maximizing profit.
Health care should not IMO.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Wellpoint had enough money to buy nearly $40 *B*illion of its own stock last year.
So there's something wrong in the accounting in the op-ed you're citing.
So there's something wrong in the accounting in the op-ed you're citing.
tivo
CAGiversary!
Small-Bill Proposal for Sensible Health-Care Reform
To make health insurance more accessible, affordable, and portable — without increasing government
control, jeopardizing the quality of care, or breaking the bank:
1. Cut costs by preventing runaway malpractice lawsuits. Relieve doctors from having to practice costly
defensive medicine, by capping noneconomic and punitive damages, while continuing to allow unlimited
economic damages to compensate for financial loss. (No increase in government spending. Savings: $53
billion to the federal government, and billions in additional savings to private citizens.*)
2. Cut costs by allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. Allow Americans to shop for coverage
from coast to coast — whether from lower-mandate states at lower prices, or from higher-mandate (additional-
coverage) states at higher prices. Allow plans bought in one state to be transported to another. (No increase in
government spending.*)
3. Cut costs by allowing lower premiums for healthier lifestyles. Federal regulations ban companies from
offering more than a 20 percent discount to those who eat and drink in moderation, exercise, or don’t smoke. Such
regulations handcuff private cost-cutting efforts and should be eliminated. (No increase in government spending.*)
4. Increase access to health insurance by ending the unfair tax on the uninsured (and self-insured), giving
them a tax-break similar to that which is already available to those with employer-provided insurance.
Provide refundable annual tax-credits of $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family — directly to the American
people, not to insurers. Leave employer-provided insurance, its tax-exempt status, and the rest of the tax code,
intact. (Increase in government spending: approximately $80 billion (for credits beyond taxes paid). Reduced
revenues: approximately $120 billion (for refunds of taxes paid).*)
5. Provide further help for those who are uninsured and have expensive preexisting conditions, by
increasing federal support for state-run or state-organized high-risk pools. Thirty-four states already have
pools to help those who can’t get affordable coverage because of expensive preexisting conditions. We should help
all 50 states to establish or organize such pools. (Increase in government spending: $100 billion.*) (See ** below.)
6. Convert some federal funds into block grants to states, and reallocate the savings resulting from reducing
the number of uninsured. Disproportionate Share Hospital (or DSH (“dish”)) payments reimburse hospitals for
treating the uninsured in emergency rooms. With fewer uninsured, some of these funds can be allocated more
efficiently, helping to fund the above proposals. Start the block grants at 75% of each state’s current federal DSH
funding level, reduce them by 5 percent annually until they reach 50% in year-6, and then index them to the consumer
price index minus one percentage point. (No increase in government spending. Savings: approximately $180 billion.*)
7. Implement additional reforms from the House Republican health bill. Adopt regulatory reforms in the
small group and non-group markets, standards for electronic administration, an abbreviated approval pathway for
follow-on biological products, and HSA reforms). (Increase in government spending: $0. Savings: $20 billion.*)
*Tallies are estimates for 2011 to 2020, based largely on
previously published Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
projections. Additionally, an estimated $50 billion would
be saved through associated effects on revenues and
outlays, based on CBO scoring of the House GOP bill.
**A federal survey cited by the CBO indicates that 1-1.5
million Americans are uninsured because of preexisting
conditions. Safely assuming twice that many (2-3 million),
each person would get $3,333-5,000, plus a tax credit of
$2,000, for a total of $5,333-$7,000 in yearly federal relief.
www.smallbill.org
To make health insurance more accessible, affordable, and portable — without increasing government
control, jeopardizing the quality of care, or breaking the bank:
1. Cut costs by preventing runaway malpractice lawsuits. Relieve doctors from having to practice costly
defensive medicine, by capping noneconomic and punitive damages, while continuing to allow unlimited
economic damages to compensate for financial loss. (No increase in government spending. Savings: $53
billion to the federal government, and billions in additional savings to private citizens.*)
2. Cut costs by allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. Allow Americans to shop for coverage
from coast to coast — whether from lower-mandate states at lower prices, or from higher-mandate (additional-
coverage) states at higher prices. Allow plans bought in one state to be transported to another. (No increase in
government spending.*)
3. Cut costs by allowing lower premiums for healthier lifestyles. Federal regulations ban companies from
offering more than a 20 percent discount to those who eat and drink in moderation, exercise, or don’t smoke. Such
regulations handcuff private cost-cutting efforts and should be eliminated. (No increase in government spending.*)
4. Increase access to health insurance by ending the unfair tax on the uninsured (and self-insured), giving
them a tax-break similar to that which is already available to those with employer-provided insurance.
Provide refundable annual tax-credits of $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family — directly to the American
people, not to insurers. Leave employer-provided insurance, its tax-exempt status, and the rest of the tax code,
intact. (Increase in government spending: approximately $80 billion (for credits beyond taxes paid). Reduced
revenues: approximately $120 billion (for refunds of taxes paid).*)
5. Provide further help for those who are uninsured and have expensive preexisting conditions, by
increasing federal support for state-run or state-organized high-risk pools. Thirty-four states already have
pools to help those who can’t get affordable coverage because of expensive preexisting conditions. We should help
all 50 states to establish or organize such pools. (Increase in government spending: $100 billion.*) (See ** below.)
6. Convert some federal funds into block grants to states, and reallocate the savings resulting from reducing
the number of uninsured. Disproportionate Share Hospital (or DSH (“dish”)) payments reimburse hospitals for
treating the uninsured in emergency rooms. With fewer uninsured, some of these funds can be allocated more
efficiently, helping to fund the above proposals. Start the block grants at 75% of each state’s current federal DSH
funding level, reduce them by 5 percent annually until they reach 50% in year-6, and then index them to the consumer
price index minus one percentage point. (No increase in government spending. Savings: approximately $180 billion.*)
7. Implement additional reforms from the House Republican health bill. Adopt regulatory reforms in the
small group and non-group markets, standards for electronic administration, an abbreviated approval pathway for
follow-on biological products, and HSA reforms). (Increase in government spending: $0. Savings: $20 billion.*)
*Tallies are estimates for 2011 to 2020, based largely on
previously published Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
projections. Additionally, an estimated $50 billion would
be saved through associated effects on revenues and
outlays, based on CBO scoring of the House GOP bill.
**A federal survey cited by the CBO indicates that 1-1.5
million Americans are uninsured because of preexisting
conditions. Safely assuming twice that many (2-3 million),
each person would get $3,333-5,000, plus a tax credit of
$2,000, for a total of $5,333-$7,000 in yearly federal relief.
www.smallbill.org
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
What I'd like to see you do, if you support those measures, is look at the discussion a few posts above in this thread, about buying insurance across state lines. If you support it, you certainly understand the logic of buying across state lines.
So, since you support it and understand it, you can help us rationalize the logic that explains how it will be a good thing that reduces costs and expands coverage for everyone - and won't, as I claim, be a race to the bottom that excludes more people than the current system does.
thanks in advance.
So, since you support it and understand it, you can help us rationalize the logic that explains how it will be a good thing that reduces costs and expands coverage for everyone - and won't, as I claim, be a race to the bottom that excludes more people than the current system does.
thanks in advance.
bread's done