If you like your health plan you get to keep it
JK
deductible has more than doubled and my premiums have increased by
40%. I think the reason for this is partly that the private insurers
understand they will have to compete with subsidized Obamacare.
Welcome to the brave new world. Work more, pay more, get less.
steve
There are two main reasoins why premiums are going up, and anyone who knows
insurance knew it would happen.
1. Pre-existing Conditions cant be Excluded (for kids, now, but everyone
later on): Obviousy pre-existing conditions mean that the insurer will pay
out more in benefits. It's like being able to buy life insurance on a dead
person. The payout is a sure thing. Higher benefits means higher premiums.
2. Kids on Until 26 Years Old: This is another expansion of coverage that
means insurers will pay out more benefits. Again, higher benefits means
higher premiums.
Regarding 1: This is why the law mandates that everyone is forced to buy
insurance. If not, people could wait until they got sick or injured to buy
insurance and the pre-existing condition would be covered. But that would
mean the premium would just be the expected cost of the condition (plus
admin costs and profit margin), so there would be no point in even calling
it insurance. It would just be a less efficient payment by a third party.
If everyone is forced to buy insurance, the healthy people end up paying
high premiums to cover both themselves and those who have pre-existing
conditions.
That presents some real problems in terms of insurance pricing, because a
significant portion of healthy people's premiums would be needed to
subsidize those who are already sick. But how is the subsidy spread over
the insureds? It can be done many ways, and if different companies do it
differently (and I they will), customers could cherry pick the plan where
they pay a smaller portion of ths subsidy. You might guess that the ability
to cherry pick causes the overall subsidy to be inadequate, with some
companies likely going out of business. Companies will attempt to use
marketing practices to remain profitable (like no agents in older
communities), which will mean that some demographics will find it hard to
get insurance. In short, it's a mess.
Regarding 2: I find it hard to understand why anyone would consider this a
good thing. Insurers already allow you to keep your kids on a policy as
long as you like...you just have to buy the right policy and pay the extra
premium. When the law says they must be covered, you dont have the choice
to pay for them or not...you must pay. The law hasnt given anyone anything,
rather it has just taken away a choice. It's as if the govt mandated that
all guitars come with an amp. Guitars would then cost you the price of a
guitar and an amp, even if you didnt need one. Choice is a good thing, so
why be happy that the govt is taking it away?
There are lots of other problems with the law, but these are two big ones
that are in play right now. Most others kick in in 2014.
steve
--
"The law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens,
though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind."
William Blackstone
rpjazzguitar
But tell me this ... why did my premiums go way up even before Obama
was elected?
tom walls
Clearly, they anticipated Obama's election.
sheetsofsound
Wow...What a unique event. It certainly wouldn't be because health
care is getting more expensive and corporations are trying to save
money in a shrinking economy brought on by your boy "W" would it?!?
David J. Littleboy
If you assume that everyone is covered all the time from conception, then
there's really no such thing as "preexisting condition". In the current
system, someone gets sick, they change insurance plans, and the new plan
thinks it sees a "preexisting condition" where the old plan just saw a
statistically expected disease appear.
Which is why the concept of "preexisting condition" simply doesn't exist in
any other industrialized country. This insane stupidity is unique to the US.
But I agree that "would be no point in even calling it insurance". Civilized
countries don't let its citizens go bankrupt over medical costs, don't let
them die because they can't afford medicine. This insane stupidity is unique
to the US.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
rpjazzguitar
with anybody?
I wonder if the problem is that fewer subscribers (due a poor economy)
means that they have to spread their fixed costs among fewer people.
Or might they be trying to profiteer before they're forced to return a
higher percentage of premiums in the form of medical care (instead of
keeping it as profit)?
I have some concerns about the health care bill, but they have more to
do with quality than cost. My question stems from the number of
additional people covered, without substantially increasing the number
of doctors. My predication is that we're going to be seeing more nurse
practitioners and other lesser trained personnel.
Ken
No reason will come to bear for a system where heathcare is a
commodity. It's a shame it has to be accepted and rationalized - any
of its facets.Healthcare premiums were on their way up on a steep
curve before Obama came to office and now knowing that corporations
own and run America, the imminent has to be acknowledged. The rates
will go up and up and up until affording healthcare becomes comparable
to buying jewelry. Free enterprise is good; it motivates innovation
and the like, but making healthare to conform to the laws of demand
and supply is not according the same value of life to the living as to
the unborn as the paradox goes. What a twist of just about everything
nowadays! The time when complete idiots could be senators has come. It
hurts to think indeed. My rant.
KAA
JK
I've been seeing 10 to 15 % increases in my insurance costs over the
past few years. This is the first time my deductible has more than
doubled in one year 700 to 1500 and I've never seen a 40% increase in
my premiums, ever. The impact of that on personal spending is huge. It
IS a unique event for me and for thousands of others who work in my
industry who are also subject to these increases. blubber on all you
want about W... let's not forget about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd,
Robert Rubin, Laurence Sommers, the crooks at Freddie and Fannie and
all the other democrat players who helped deregulate wall street took
the campaign contributions and fed at the trough right next to the
republicans. Sorry to tell you this but we don't have a single payer
system; maybe we should but we don't. I guess getting elected didn't
enable obama to single handedly dismantle the insurance industry which
happens to employ tens of thousands of people. So if you want to start
fucking around with the market economy of healthcare in the midst of a
depression/recession and create even more uncertainty you do it at
your peril. That is why the dems will get their ass kicked in a few
weeks. btw...we haven't seen anything yet...wait till 2014 and the
massive expansion of medicaid. I hope you like even higher costs lower
quality care and long waits to see the doctor.
rpjazzguitar
JK
> Regulation of the financial industry is an Executive Branch task.
so the senate banking committee and the federal reserve have no role
in any of this. I see.
Gerry
I'm unsure how the cost of premiums doubled between 1998 and 2008, but
I'm sure Obama was behind that too!
--
-- Gerry
Gerry
Additionally: The health care industry will jack prices up any time and
every time that they can, and to the highest possible rates allowed.
They like to make money, and will make as much as they can.
When you try to sell water after a hurricane for 10 dollars a quart or
whatever, you can actually go to jail I undersand. But if a
corporation wants to do it, they can probably buy the necessary
senators.
--
-- Gerry
Gerry
> Maybe so.
>
> But tell me this ... why did my premiums go way up even before Obama
> was elected?
Bill Clinton. And if it wasn't because of Clinton, it was because of Carter.
--
-- Gerry
Tim McNamara
<296102a6-7e05-4bcc...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
JK <franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, man, but that's BS. That stuff was happening regularly back in
the Bush Administration days too. My premiums and costs went up about
25% every year or two throughout those eight years. The "free market"
does not function the way the free marketers claim it does. Never has.
That extra money is going to like the pockets of CEOs and upper
management, not to pay for care. I'm a health care provider and my
reimbursement rates have barely gone up in the last 20 years- nowhere
near as much as my premiums and costs have gone up (about 500%).
And it's not going to change. The incoming Republican-controlled
Congress will go back to its back room deals, deregulating malarkey and
continue to rob the public coffers to enrich their elite country club
buddies. They've spent most of the last 30 years trying to destroy the
things that America great and now they'll get their chance to finish the
job. Then they'll blame the Democrats, like always.
As the saying goes, in a democracy the people get the government they
deserve. Cheers.
--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
rpjazzguitar
To hear some tell it, Barney Frank was President.
Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. But, as I understand the
issue, real regulation would have prevented the disaster. That would
seem to be inconsistent with a core belief that government is the
problem and touting an increased percentage of home ownership. And,
it's still an Executive Branch responsibility.
Tim McNamara
<cafd7241-55d9-4b2a...@x7g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
rpjazzguitar <rpjazz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just reread this. How does raising their rates allow them to
> compete with anybody?
They are all doing it. It's called collusion. And it's not unique to
health care- the cell phone industry, cable TV, banks, credit card
companies, etc., also do it.
> I wonder if the problem is that fewer subscribers (due a poor
> economy) means that they have to spread their fixed costs among fewer
> people. Or might they be trying to profiteer before they're forced to
> return a higher percentage of premiums in the form of medical care
> (instead of keeping it as profit)?
No, it's just plain greed. Maybe not all of it, but a lot of it. The
actual cost of health care is rising and will rise no matter what market
forces or regulation is applied- the aging of us baby boomers guarantees
this. The only thing that might put a dent in it is if the epidemic of
obesity results in an increase of sudden deaths from heart attacks.
Otherwise we're going to die slowly and expensively from complications
of diabetes and diseases like Alzheimer's (which, all by itself, has the
capacity to bankrupt the nation. Housing crisis? Ain't seen nothing
yet and we are not planning ahead because lower taxes for the rich and
for corporations are more important).
Minnesota has seen lower growth in health insurance costs but HMOs here
are required to be non-profits- and costs here have gone up a lot.
United Health Care is headquartered here but does not insure Minnesotans
because it is not a non-profit (but did/perhaps does own a large stake
in Medica, a Minnesota based non-profit HMO). As a result, Minnesotans
have been spared a lot of the malarkey people in many other states have
had to put up with. We still have some malarkey, of course.
One of the big drivers of the bump in insurance costs has been some Blue
Cross Blue Shield divisions becoming for-profit, beginning in 1994 when
this began to be allowed. BCBS companies insure about 1/3 of Americans;
another 1/3 are on "public options" like Medicare/Medicaid/VA plans and
the rest are divvied up among the various other health insurance
companies (United Health, Humana, etc.).
> I have some concerns about the health care bill, but they have more
> to do with quality than cost. My question stems from the number of
> additional people covered, without substantially increasing the
> number of doctors. My predication is that we're going to be seeing
> more nurse practitioners and other lesser trained personnel.
Nurse practitioners are rapidly moving to a doctoral standard for their
credentials. I know a half-dozen NPs currently pursuing their PhDs and
another four that have completed them. Physical therapists and
pharmacists now have a doctoral standard, too. Hard to call that
"lesser trained." I work with a lot of nurse practitioners who are
better clinicians than some of the doctors I rub elbows with. I also
work with some damned brilliant doctors whose clinical acumen is
astonishing- my wife was the beneficiary of several of them about ten
years ago (one internist, one surgeon and one cardiologist. Holy cow.
There are some smart people working in medicine).
Ken
> In article
> <296102a6-7e05-4bcc-bb34-a2f8b5254...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
It is not really about what is in the talking points; not about
healthcare. It is about "having our country back" from them. It is our
country, not theirs. That seems to me the drive of the embolden and
loonatic tea baggers. Thank goodness for a strong Federal government
that protects the rest of us from likes of the tea baggers. Of course
the flock of sheep will follow them; evil is sensational.
rpjazzguitar
apparently going to be required, but all the existing NP's will be
grandfathered in.
They are licensed by nursing Boards, not medical Boards. I would be
surprised, pleasantly, if the exam for NP is as difficult as the MD
exam. Same for entrance requirements for school. The more stringent
the requirements the more likely we are to receive quality care. Of
course, there are poor MD's and great NP's, but I'm talking about
averages.
JK
> In article
> <296102a6-7e05-4bcc-bb34-a2f8b5254...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
anyone could pick up a newspaper in the last 20 years and learn that
health care costs are rising because of technology, longer life, over
utilization, chronic conditions etc. It's old news. we've all heard
it. I guess you guys have it all figured out that insurance companies
are the only party to blame here. What I am pointing out is that Obama
made a promise which was bullshit and he shouldn't have done it
because I'm not even coming close to being able to keep my old health
plan. A lie is a lie whether it's a democrat or a republican.
The insurance companies are only partly to blame, it's also the pay
incentives that encourage doctors and patients to overutilize the
system. Doctor salaries and overall health care budgets are set and
capped in other countries that have single payer. We have employer
based which is flawed but it provides (used to provide) world class
health care for most people who work. We have medicare for the elderly
and medicaid for the poor, and a patchwork of state based programs for
more poor people. Lots of others get free care in emergency rooms.
We have single payer for government workers at all levels and for
unions, Vets DOD workers and politicians. All the above receive great
health care. Yes there are problems with insurance companies but to
listen to the leftwing blubbering around here you'd think we were
living in the third world. Have you noticed that Greece just about
defaulted last month and they are rioting in France over an increase
in the retirement age. England is drastically cutting government
spending. In every case it's because the governments couldn't control
public spending for entitlements. Just because its single payer
doesn't mean it's free. They pay dearly with high taxes. They are
getting a clue and we should too before it's too late. The depths of a
recession was not the time to create uncertainty in the economy with
new health insurance mandates.
JK
in some cases that may be true. what about the responsibility of the
patient and the doctor not to overutilize, the system so they can keep
getting paid for every little service. what about pursuing a
reasonably healthy lifestyle instead of a third of the country being
obese? How about means testing medicare and social security? How about
limiting certain kinds of very expensive tests. Oh yeah, I forgot
everything that's wrong with healthcare is the fault of the insurance
companies. I'm sure that's all very comforting for lefties who need a
villian to blame for a problem which is actually very complex. By the
way, those insurance companies provides tens maybe hundreds of
thousands of jobs. Perhaps you'd like to lay them all off so they can
collect unemployment and sign up for an obama health exchange with a
government subsidy thrown in courtesy of people who actually work.
JK
you should read a bit more in to Franklin Raines and the Fannie and
Freddie mess. That's the next disaster around the corner that's going
to shake up the markets and the economy. Those two organizations were
handmaidens of democrat public policy to expand home ownership to
people who couldn't afford it. As far as I'm concerned, Barney should
retire and go hide somewhere; he's an inept and ethically challenged
politician who has been around Washington for too long. At least Bush
is gone. Barney just won't go away.
rpjazzguitar
> Freddie mess. That's the next disaster around the corner that's going
> to shake up the markets and the economy. Those two organizations were
> handmaidens of democrat public policy to expand home ownership to
> people who couldn't afford it. As far as I'm concerned, Barney should
> retire and go hide somewhere; he's an inept and ethically challenged
> politician who has been around Washington for too long. At least Bush
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are several potential disasters brewing.
I might remind you that Bush made speeches trumpeting the increase in
homeownership as a success of his administration.
If you follow the money from low-down payment mortgages to unqualified
buyers, through selling the paper, to dicing it into mortgage backed
securities backed by credit default swaps ...
where you end up is with the observation that the whole process was
built on incorrect ratings of debt quality.
But, it's a very complex system and I understand that a lot of planets
had to line up for this disaster to occur. Some of those errors were
bipartisan.
As far as calling the Democratic party, "democrat" with a small d,
well, that seems to be popular on the right. I'll permit myself just
one counter ... Bush inherited a good fiscal situation and left an
absolute disaster. In my view, that was because of a problematic
political philosophy and a party that moved in lockstep with him. If
the right regains power I think they'll do it again.
sheetsofsound
my deductable hardly went up at all. Maybe you should get a new job
with better benefits.
sheetsofsound
> But I agree that "would be no point in even calling it insurance". Civilized
> countries don't let its citizens go bankrupt over medical costs, don't let
> them die because they can't afford medicine. This insane stupidity is unique
> to the US.
wow, we actually agree on something.
bigdog
and I consult in the US on reimbursement strategies for patients) but
I think you should understand that free choice about health services
and medications means that you will pay what the market will bear and
competition will not bring prices down. If you don't remove the 40+
percent profits from the Health and insurance industry through
legislation you will pay more and more, and by default a large section
of the population will fall below the minimum payment levels because
of the profit requirement. You really have no free choice if you
think about it. The only free choice you have is to decide whether
you want to regulate health care or not. The former is difficult but
in Canada, health is everything. If you don't have it you can at
least get some level of quality of life. We aren't perfect and likely
a two tiered system is going to be the result, but as long as they are
regulated you won't be paying 25000 dollars if you have a heart
incident and end up at Humana.
To be honest, health costs at the supply side are independent of
republican or democratic administrations. If you argue about
administrations you have missed the health point and you don't
understand how the system works (and doesn't work in many instances).
But again, I don't live in your country and I'm prepared to pay
heavier taxes to ensure that if my children have major health issues
that I don't have to sell my house to care for them. Now go back to
trying to formulate the issues into partisan politics if that makes
you happy.
db
sheetsofsound
steve
On 21-Oct-2010, rpjazzguitar <rpjazz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But tell me this ... why did my premiums go way up even before Obama
> was elected?
There is (has been for some time) a structural incentive problem in our
health insurance and tax laws. It's what's known as a "moral hazard", where
incentives are skewed towards an undesirable outcome.
The basic proiblem is that health insurance premiums (when paid by the
employer) get tax preferred treatment relative to out of pocket health care
payments. Because costs covered by an insurer are pre-tax, while costs out
of pocket are after tax, the incentive is to have insurance cover even
routine medical costs with little payment participation by the insured.
That causes customers to become relatively price insensitive; to utilize
medical services more freely and with little regard for cost and cost saving
measures. This causes prices to rise much faster than inflation. Most
people get their health insurance through their employer, so this dynamic
(moral hazard) has dominated and distorted the health care market.
A similar thing has happened in higher education, because there are so many
generous govt grants and loan guarantees. When you lessen or remove the
incentive to save, prices go up.
The best solution would be to either end tax deductability for health
premiums OR (and I prefer this one) make all medical costs (premiums and out
of pocket) pre-tax. That would restore the incentive to conserve and to
shop price.
I see another post in this thread where someone claims that health insurance
companies are enjoying a 40% profit margin. I work in the life insurance
industry (for 30+ years now), but many companies Ive worked for also carry
health insurance. I know from my exposure to the business that health
insurance companies have had slim profits at best, and in the 1980s, when
health costs were rising at the fastest rate, competition made it impossible
to make a profit and most companies were losing money and just trying to
maintain market share. Insurance companies are squeezed between fast rising
health costs and the competitive market for group insurance (the company I
work for now has changed health carriers 3 times in the last 5 years). The
last figure I heard on the profit margin in the health insurance industry
was about 4%, which is not high by any reasonable standards. They have been
caught in the middle and demonized.
steve
--
"The law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens,
though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind."
William Blackstone
steve
On 22-Oct-2010, rpjazzguitar <rpjazz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are several potential disasters brewing.
>
> I might remind you that Bush made speeches trumpeting the increase in
> homeownership as a success of his administration.
I wish people could discuss this issue without making it about one party
against the other. Both the democrats and republicans have screwed it up
badly (though BHO has kicked it up a few notches). That's one reason tea
party types no longer trust the career republicans and have pushed for new
blood in the party.
> If you follow the money from low-down payment mortgages to unqualified
> buyers, through selling the paper, to dicing it into mortgage backed
> securities backed by credit default swaps ...
> where you end up is with the observation that the whole process was
> built on incorrect ratings of debt quality.
Debt quality ratings were based on the assumption that govt would step in
and save FNMA if the loans went bad. That makes sense when defaults are
somewhere near normal historical levels, but when the whole market crashes,
even Uncle Sam doesnt have enough cash.
We can blame the players in the market, but the villian is in the incentive
structure under which the greedy could make money by acting irresponsibly
(making risky loans and blithely selling them to FNMA). Take away the
ability to make money irresponsibly, and banks will go back to the
responsible mortgage lending practices that have made the mortgage market
safe and stable for more than a century. You cant get rid of greed, but you
can keep greed honest by allowing bad business decisions to result in bad
business results.
steve
On 22-Oct-2010, sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I got acne when "W" was in office. ergo, the tea party causes acne.
Are you under the impression that tea party types liked and supported "W"?
Believe me (Im a tea party type, and Ive been to many rallies), "W" is not
popular with the limited govt crowd.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the cost increases (and they are just starting)
are predictable from the elements of the healthcare law. People are not
just blaming BHO because he happens to be there. The law is flawed and will
increase both health care costs and insurance premiums.
steve
On 21-Oct-2010, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> If you assume that everyone is covered all the time from conception, then
> there's really no such thing as "preexisting condition". In the current
> system, someone gets sick, they change insurance plans, and the new plan
> thinks it sees a "preexisting condition" where the old plan just saw a
> statistically expected disease appear.
>
> Which is why the concept of "preexisting condition" simply doesn't exist
> in
> any other industrialized country. This insane stupidity is unique to the
> US.
Economic freedom is relatively unique to the US. That's our strength, not
our weakness.
But you do make a good point. If you buy health ins when you're healthy, a
new illness will be covered when it happens. But if you dont buy insurance
when healthy, isnt it the risk of illness your responsibility?
6fingers
wait until it's "FREE".
It's not about health care, it's about control.
How many Canadian doctors have come to The U.S to practice
medicine ?
Conversely, how many American doctors have moved to Canada ?
Why did Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams traveled to
the United States in February to undergo heart surgery ?
Why did Liberal MP Belinda Stronach ( a real USA hater by the way),
come to California in June 2007 for some of her breast cancer
treatment ?
Why are U.S. cities like Buffalo, Seattle and Detroit do a booming
business with Canadian medical tourists ?
Why are Canadian newspapers filled with U.S. doctors advertising their
services ?
Why does metro Atlanta have more MRI machines than all of Canada
combined ?
Why is your pet dog able to get an MRI faster than it's human owner ?
A special question to "Sheets of Shit" ...........
Which country in the world has the best 5 year survival rates for
almost EVERY form of cancer in the world ?
to be continued..................
To the Americans on this board, don't forget to vote !
Tim McNamara
<69576812-8cab-47fa...@p26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <brus...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm just a simple Canadian (mind you I ran a health insurance company
> and I consult in the US on reimbursement strategies for patients) but
> I think you should understand that free choice about health services
> and medications means that you will pay what the market will bear and
> competition will not bring prices down. If you don't remove the 40+
> percent profits from the Health and insurance industry through
> legislation you will pay more and more, and by default a large section
> of the population will fall below the minimum payment levels because
> of the profit requirement. You really have no free choice if you
> think about it.
Us Americans would rather have the appearance of free choice than actual
freedom, it seems to me. We seem to be quite happy to have monopolies,
for example.
> The only free choice you have is to decide whether you want to
> regulate health care or not.
Government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem.
Ronald Reagan told us that so it must be true because he was a
Republican and they never lie.
> The former is difficult but in Canada, health is everything. If you
> don't have it you can at least get some level of quality of life. We
> aren't perfect and likely a two tiered system is going to be the
> result, but as long as they are regulated you won't be paying 25000
> dollars if you have a heart incident and end up at Humana.
>
> To be honest, health costs at the supply side are independent of
> republican or democratic administrations. If you argue about
> administrations you have missed the health point and you don't
> understand how the system works (and doesn't work in many instances).
> But again, I don't live in your country and I'm prepared to pay
> heavier taxes to ensure that if my children have major health issues
> that I don't have to sell my house to care for them. Now go back to
> trying to formulate the issues into partisan politics if that makes
> you happy.
OK! :-) Partisan politics is the real American national sport, not
baseball.
We pay heavy taxes for health care already, we just don't notice because
we pay them to corporations instead of to the government. Back in the
early days of the health care reform bill, when the public option was on
the table about 70% of the American public supported it. Then the
Democrats removed the public option because they were paying more
attention to the 30% and public opinion on health care reform rapidly
soured. We ended up with lousy non-reform that is nearly identical to a
Republican proposal from years ago and it's going to cost the Democrats
control of the House and Senate. If the public option had passed and
people- especially the 40 million uninsured Americans- could have
enrolled right away, it'd be a different story. The end result would
have been an enormously popular program like Social Security and
Medicare- especially because funding could be massively diversified with
a light load across wide sectors of the economy instead of a
concentrated load such as insurance premiums (this should also be done
with Social Security and Medicare to ensure their solvency).
The funny thing is that the biggest economic beneficiaries of the public
option wouldn't have been people, it would have been business of all
sizes. Getting the cost of health care off their payroll would put
American businesses on an equal footing with most of the rest of the
world. It would have reduced exportation of jobs to other countries.
It would have boosted entrepreneurialism. Small businesses would have
been better able to expand and hire more employees.
But, alas, knee jerk reactions rule the day in modern American polity
and rationality has no place. Neither do real Christian values- e.g.,
that we *are* our brother's keepers. The gentle generous Christianity I
was raised with has been replaced by a militant Talibanized version
exploited to keep Republicans in office. Apparently Jesus is now said
to have taught "I got mine, you get yours."
Tim McNamara
<9f7cedb3-cb96-43e5...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
JK <franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Reading your posts, it occurs to me that maybe you should try thinking
instead of regurgitating Limbaugh-Beck-O'Reilly soundbites. It's sad to
see how far conservatism in the US has fallen in the past 30 years. A
reasoned, principled conservatism is a vital force in the success of the
American experiment, but we no longer have that. Conservatism has
become the home of cynically manufactured and exploited rage,
manipulated wedge issues, and doublespeak soundbites. The current
Republican Party cares not one whit about Joe the Plumber's prosperity
or Jane the Christian's values- they only care to dupe Joe and Jane into
voting for them so they can stay in power and keep bleeding the
taxpayers to benefit their cronies. The Republicans have engineered the
biggest redistributions of wealth in the history of the nation over the
past 30 years. That's what they are fighting to maintain in these
elections- not for you or me.
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> On 21-Oct-2010, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > If you assume that everyone is covered all the time from
> > conception, then there's really no such thing as "preexisting
> > condition". In the current system, someone gets sick, they change
> > insurance plans, and the new plan thinks it sees a "preexisting
> > condition" where the old plan just saw a statistically expected
> > disease appear.
> >
> > Which is why the concept of "preexisting condition" simply doesn't
> > exist in any other industrialized country. This insane stupidity is
> > unique to the US.
>
> Economic freedom is relatively unique to the US. That's our
> strength, not our weakness.
OMG ROTFL! Oh, wait, that's right- the French don't have a word for
"entrepreneur." How could I forget?
> But you do make a good point. If you buy health ins when you're
> healthy, a new illness will be covered when it happens. But if you
> dont buy insurance when healthy, isnt it the risk of illness your
> responsibility?
How about if you're born with, say, cerebral palsy? Or mental
retardation? Or any one of hundreds of other genetic or congenital
conditions? Those are *all* pre-existing conditions that can disqualify
you from buying health insurance. Are those people just SOL?
You are practicing a form of social Darwinism with your thinking.
Tim McNamara
<eac66c3d-916c-4cd9...@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey, waitaminute that's socialism.... ;-)
Tim McNamara
<caf55b9a-2a07-480e...@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Ken <akoh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is not really about what is in the talking points; not about
> healthcare. It is about "having our country back" from them. It is
> our country, not theirs. That seems to me the drive of the embolden
> and loonatic tea baggers. Thank goodness for a strong Federal
> government that protects the rest of us from likes of the tea
> baggers. Of course the flock of sheep will follow them; evil is
> sensational.
There is a remarkable arrogance among the Palinistas and Tea Partiers
that they are somehow the only legitimate Americans and everyone who
thinks differently from them is some other country.
steve
On 22-Oct-2010, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Reading your posts, it occurs to me that maybe you should try thinking
> instead of regurgitating Limbaugh-Beck-O'Reilly soundbites.
Actually Im speaking from personal knowlege of the insurance industry as
well as and understanding of economics accumulated over decades of reading
and study. I cant stand either Limbaugh or O'Rielly, in fact.
> It's sad to
> see how far conservatism in the US has fallen in the past 30 years.
I agree, but probaby for different reasons.
> A
> reasoned, principled conservatism is a vital force in the success of the
> American experiment, but we no longer have that.
We are in the midst of a rebirth of reasoned, principled conservatism.
People are reading the founding fathers, Adam Smith, Locke, Von Mises, and
FA Hayek. It's unfortunate that the left has chosen to see what they want
to see in this rebirth, rather than actually attempting to understand what
most tea party folks are about.
> Conservatism has
> become the home of cynically manufactured and exploited rage,
> manipulated wedge issues, and doublespeak soundbites.
That describes politics in general, these days, and the left is at least as
good at it as the right.
> The current
> Republican Party cares not one whit about Joe the Plumber's prosperity
> or Jane the Christian's values- they only care to dupe Joe and Jane into
> voting for them so they can stay in power and keep bleeding the
> taxpayers to benefit their cronies.
You may have noticed that the republican establishment is nearly as
threatened by the tea party as democrats. That's because your description
accurately fits so many career republicans (as well as democrats).
> The Republicans have engineered the
> biggest redistributions of wealth in the history of the nation over the
> past 30 years. That's what they are fighting to maintain in these
> elections- not for you or me.
Republicans and democrats, you should say. Each has their cronys, and each
has used the political system to redistribute wealth to their friends, all
at the expense of taxpayers. You seem to be blind to this activity on the
part of democrats.
For me, this isnt about two parties, it's about regaining the liberties lost
over the last century while preserving the gains. Lefty rhetoric always
posits this as a choice between going forward and going back, but that's
wrong and overly simplistic. The govt has accumulated too much power, and
it uses that power to maintain it's power and enrich it's friends. Both
sides do it, and we must elect candidates that reject the status quo.
Unfortunately, they face challanges from the entrenched interests, and they
often have a difficult case to make when so few people understand economics
and (for example) the specifics of the insurance market. There is a good
reason why economic decisions shoud be made by those who are directly
involved (businesses and customers) rather than under the political process.
We need to return to limited govt so that wealth is not controlled
politically.
I do not take these positions as a recent convert, or because I parrot
talking heads. Ive been a libertarian for some 30 years, now, I read
extensively, and I am no fan of either major party.
steve
Travis
Steve,
I agree with the above but doesn't the McCarran?Ferguson Act of 1945
have a large bearing on this matter also since it allows insurance to
not be treated as inter-state commerce thus resulting in state control
and distortion of insurance offerings. For example what most people
call health insurance is actually health insurance combined with health
maintanance which adds considerably to the overall cost. One is not
free in most states to purchase simple catastrophic health insurance
like one can do with car insurance - for the most part we don't buy car
maintainance insurance to fix flats and change our oil etc.. In short,
there is not a free market in any insurance so costs naturally increase.
Travis
sheetsofsound
> On 22-Oct-2010, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I got acne when "W" was in office. ergo, the tea party causes acne.
>
> Are you under the impression that tea party types liked and supported "W"?
> Believe me (Im a tea party type, and Ive been to many rallies), "W" is not
> popular with the limited govt crowd.
No it was a bad joke. All I know is that republicans can't play jazz.
steve
On 22-Oct-2010, Travis <travissomewherei...@charter.net>
wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I agree with the above but doesn't the McCarran?Ferguson Act of 1945
> have a large bearing on this matter also since it allows insurance to
> not be treated as inter-state commerce thus resulting in state control
> and distortion of insurance offerings.
It cuts both ways, Id say. Insurance is far too regulated; limiting
choices, reducing competition, and driving up costs. State control would be
better if we could buy products from out of state providers that are not
necessarily approved in our own state. That would make the market more
robust and states would have to compete on the soundness of their
regulation.
> For example what most people
> call health insurance is actually health insurance combined with health
> maintanance which adds considerably to the overall cost.
Exactly my point. Tax parity between insured benefits and out of pocket
payments would change that.
> In short,
> there is not a free market in any insurance so costs naturally increase.
Yup.
steve
On 22-Oct-2010, sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you under the impression that tea party types liked and supported
> > "W"?
> > Believe me (Im a tea party type, and Ive been to many rallies), "W" is
> > not
> > popular with the limited govt crowd.
>
> No it was a bad joke. All I know is that republicans can't play jazz.
LOL!
Not true, of course. But funny.
Travis
As others have observed the Democrats and the Republicans are just the
two wings of the Big Brother party. I see no policy changes from Bush
to Obama, only a worsening of the situation.
The incentives are indeed screwed up. The rating agencies are state
monopolies (NRSRO's) who rate their paying customers. Can anyone here
guess how they rated their customers?
Business regulation has increased over the last few decades and actually
accelerated under Bush. But as economists will tell you, regulations
typically lead to regulatory capture which is a phrase meaning
regulation designed to protect the regulated industry by decreasing
competition. Why were the majority of health insurance companies so in
favor of Obamacare? Why indeed are so many big corporate interests
calling for increased regulation in general?
Central banking controls the money supply and interest rates. It is the
antithesis of a free market. The result has been constant inflation,
increased frequency and severity of recessions, endless and in my view
pointless wars, huge deficit spending, and overall debasement of the
currency, a crime formerly punishable by death and a principle concern
to our founders. Did anyone notice that during the boom years, savings
went down and equity investment went up? That's because of the low
interest rates forcing savers into the volatile markets where their
investments soon went bust. Cui bono?
Even illicit activity benefits from government regulation. One
definition of a cartel is a formal organization of producers and
manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production. The
drug cartels exist precisely because of government prohibition.
Government prohibition is directly responsible for the destabilizing
murder and terrorism in Mexico, Columbia, and elsewhere. Do you think
the marijuane producers in California are voting for Prop 19? What
politicians will get the cartel campaign contributions?
Government is and has always been the problem.
JK
I've read each of your posts on this thread and each one is more silly
and embarrasing than the previous one. You really have nothing
intelligent to say.
JK
don't read anything into the small d, I'm just a lousy typist. Bush
was a fiscal joke. The guy never veteoed a spending bill in the whole
eight years he was in office. No argument from me on that. Let's look
at Robrt Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Scretary and President of BOFA. One
of the good guys, right? He was probably more influential than anyone
in getting the regulators to back down and allow the banks to lower
their reserve requirements. Some regulators fought him but they didn't
have the power. The low bank reserves was one of the key factors in
the severity of the banking crisis. If they'd kept a little more in
the vault the effect of all the bad bets would have been less. By the
way, Rubin was paid hundreds of millions of dollars ( no exaggeration)
as pres of BOFA while the economy crashed. And he had the nerve to
testify to congress a few months ago that "strong controls were in
place at BOFA." Give me a freaking break man. If you want to get
totally partisan at least you should accept that some of the worst
offenders were Democrats.
JK
your 40% number is bullshit. The profit margin in the insurance
industry is nowhere near that. I guess on usenet everyone is a
publisher and it's fine to make up your own facts.
Jonathan Byrd
> I wish people could discuss this issue without making it about one party
> against the other. Both the democrats and republicans have screwed it up
> badly (though BHO has kicked it up a few notches). That's one reason tea
> party types no longer trust the career republicans and have pushed for new
> blood in the party.
Distrusting republicans is not a bad starting point, but most of that
tea party "new blood" is bat shit crazy.
Maj6th
jazz.
Maj6th
rpjazzguitar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I didn't want to get totally partisan. I posted in response
to a very partisan sounding post.
The antecedants to the crash include some moves by Democrats. The
actual crash occurred nearly 8 years into the Bush administration, the
first 6 of which included Republican control of all branches of
government. It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another to sit idly
by and let it become a disaster. If your core political philosophy is
"government is the problem", there's an excellent chance you won't
intervene even when it's necessary. There are a lot of details, but
that's the heart of it.
Here's a copy of a post on another forum ...
I also read a CBS poll about the Tea Party. I was trying to drill
down a bit to find out who they are and what they believe.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html
The demographics are largely unsurprising. Overwhelmingly white,
heavily southern, older, more religious and more male. More of them
are college educated than the average (I wonder if the pollster
checked transcripts).
Their core belief is that government should be smaller.
Then it gets stranger. More than the average American, they tend to
.believe that Obama wasn't born in the US,deny global warming,
believe that the government is getting more
socialist, that Obama has raised taxes and that African Americans
have it just fine in the USA. They like Glen Beck and GWBush.
Some of those things may be matters of opinion, but some are facts
they get wrong. The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is
incontrovertible. Obama has lowered taxes for the vast majority of
people. They blithely deny the scientific evidence for climate
change.
The scary part is that they're moving the entire debate in the
direction of the lunatic right. They are likely to win some of the
upcoming elections, which will make Congress even stranger.
6fingers
Also, conservatives have to be careful in the arts world otherwise
"tolerant" libs do things like this.
http://www.breitbart.tv/union-stagehand-fired-for-wearing-bush-hat-and-shirt/
and does the name Juan Williams ring a bell ?
Liberals are GENARALLY the most intolerant people, and finally
it is becoming obvious to more people everyday.
P.S. Whoever that complete fool was who said the medical insurance
companies operate at a 40% profit rate is obviously an Obama voter, so
don't be so hard on him.
(Modern) Liberalism is a mental disorder.
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE !
to be continued ......................
6fingers
incontrovertible. "
And that evidence is what exactly ?
By the way, I do believe he was born in The States.
Funny thing is, I had to show a ( complete long form )
birth certificate to get a new driver license last year.
However, O-Bammy has spent a great deal of ( other people's money )
fighting to NOT show his ( long form ) birth certificate.
Maj6th
You can drill down to China and never find who they are and what they
believe. They have no leaders, no spokesmen, and no platform. They are a
disgruntled mass protesting for a change from the status quo to absolutely
nothing except, a change of the status quo. Sort of a justice Whiteism; We
don't know what we don't like, but we know it when we see it. The media has
propelled the movement along because it sells and makes good copy, and now
all of the congressmen and senators are falling all over themselves to try
and figure out what it is they want, and to pander for their vote. So much
for political social Darwinism. Maybe we need to go back to Jefferson's
voting criterion. What is happening now was predicted and feared in the
polemics of the late eighteenth century.
Maj6th
rpjazzguitar
> " The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is
> incontrovertible. "
>
> And that evidence is what exactly ?
His actual birth certificate, made available by the State of Hawaii.
And, if that wasn't enough, a copy of an announcement of his birth
from a local newspaper.
The so-called "birthers" somehow avoid addressing that evidence and,
instead, continue to spout irrational beliefs.
And, based on the CBS poll, that's a sizeable number of Tea Party
people.
Same problem with the tax issue. This is a tax-based movement, the
members of which somehow don't seem to know which way taxes have been
moving.
Yet, they seem to be well-funded -- (now begins speculation on my
part) and that is probably because of big rightwing money -- and the
agenda of that money is probably inconsistent with the real interests
of the people taking it.
6fingers
"
Well thanks for clearing that up for us, so please let me know
two things
1) name of the hospital
2) the attending physician
Both of which are legal requirements to qualify as official.
FACT:
Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle placed the Obama's birth certificate under
seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no
one in the press obtains access to the original document under any
circumstances.
Once again, I believe Obammy was born in The States
Another thing to ponder is when did Barack Obama change his name to
Barry Soetoro ..........
and when did he change it back to Barack Obama ?
sheetsofsound
shadup and post your clips @sswipe
sheetsofsound
> Uh-oh,.........I think it's too late, I feel a big movement coming
> on........... uhhhh, gotta run
It'll be your most memorable musical moment I'm sure.
JK
>
> The demographics are largely unsurprising. Overwhelmingly white,
> heavily southern, older, more religious and more male. More of them
> are college educated than the average (I wonder if the pollster
> checked transcripts).
>
> Their core belief is that government should be smaller.
>
> Then it gets stranger. More than the average American, they tend to
> .believe that Obama wasn't born in the US,deny global warming,
> believe that the government is getting more
> socialist, that Obama has raised taxes and that African Americans
> have it just fine in the USA. They like Glen Beck and GWBush.
>
> Some of those things may be matters of opinion, but some are facts
> they get wrong. The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is
> incontrovertible. Obama has lowered taxes for the vast majority of
> people. They blithely deny the scientific evidence for climate
> change.
>
> The scary part is that they're moving the entire debate in the
> direction of the lunatic right. They are likely to win some of the
> upcoming elections, which will make Congress even stranger.
george soros a notoroius antisemite has been pouring his millions into
whacky left wing causes for a long time now. There are all sorts of
nutbags on the left with all manner of ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Some of them hang out here.
rpjazzguitar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Name the nutbags that are getting support from the Democratic National
Committee, the way O'Donnell is supported by Michael Steele.
rpjazzguitar
> " His actual birth certificate, made available by the State of Hawaii.
> "
>
> Well thanks for clearing that up for us, so please let me know
> two things
>
> 1) name of the hospital
>
> 2) the attending physician
>
The link to the birth certificate and some answers can be found here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
There it is in black and white, along with the newspaper
announcements.
Are these forgeries?
If not, why do the "birthers" refuse to accept it -- and why are they
so numerous within the Tea Party according to the CBS poll? Did the
Republican Governor of Hawaii lie? If so, why?
Here's my answer: they're intellectually dishonest. An honest person
is willing to acknowledge something when it's staring him in the face.
They don't like Obama, they don't like liberals (for various reasons)
and that's enough justification for any nasty thing they want to
believe.
sheetsofsound
because the birthists are racists. They refuse to accept someone as
president who has a different skin pigment. I think I just some of
these "cats" on primetime giving a thumbs up to anti-muslim behavior
in texas...
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4339476&page=1
rpjazzguitar
I'm not sure things would be that much different if it was Biden/
Clinton.
But, I think there is an element of racism in the entire right wing.
It goes back to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. Long story.
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> On 22-Oct-2010, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Reading your posts, it occurs to me that maybe you should try
> > thinking instead of regurgitating Limbaugh-Beck-O'Reilly
> > soundbites.
>
> Actually Im speaking from personal knowlege of the insurance industry
> as well as and understanding of economics accumulated over decades of
> reading and study. I cant stand either Limbaugh or O'Rielly, in
> fact.
>
> > It's sad to
> > see how far conservatism in the US has fallen in the past 30 years.
>
> I agree, but probaby for different reasons.
>
> > A
> > reasoned, principled conservatism is a vital force in the success
> > of the American experiment, but we no longer have that.
>
> We are in the midst of a rebirth of reasoned, principled
> conservatism. People are reading the founding fathers, Adam Smith,
> Locke, Von Mises, and FA Hayek. It's unfortunate that the left has
> chosen to see what they want to see in this rebirth, rather than
> actually attempting to understand what most tea party folks are
> about.
The Tea Party folks I've met have no such depth, I am sorry to say. The
space they are is is "my life sucks and I'm looking for someone to
blame." Apparently they have no clue that this is about the most
self-victimizing position someone can take.
"The left," BTW is a myth. It ceased to exist years ago except for a
few holdouts. There is only the center and a right that is accelerating
into radicalism. They now consider the centrists to be "lefties."
Hell, Ronald Reagan would be a lefty for some of the nouveau right.
> > Conservatism has become the home of cynically manufactured and
> > exploited rage, manipulated wedge issues, and doublespeak
> > soundbites.
>
> That describes politics in general, these days, and the left is at
> least as good at it as the right.
But the "left" (such as it is) isn't as good at it as the right. 20
minutes listening to Air America will demonstrate that. The right,
OTOH, has a set of organized 24/7 bashing machines in operation.
> > The current Republican Party cares not one whit about Joe the
> > Plumber's prosperity or Jane the Christian's values- they only care
> > to dupe Joe and Jane into voting for them so they can stay in power
> > and keep bleeding the taxpayers to benefit their cronies.
>
> You may have noticed that the republican establishment is nearly as
> threatened by the tea party as democrats. That's because your
> description accurately fits so many career republicans (as well as
> democrats).
The Republican establishment has been baffled by suddenly having a
pissed off split from their base that is far to the right of Goldwater,
to a great extent the architect of the establishment right and by modern
standards a moderate.
A further problem for the Republicans is that they have three bases-
northeastern conservatives, southern conservatives and western
conservatives. The three have very different world views and the
"Southern Strategy" (well, there have been at least two GOP Southern
Strategies in the past 45 years) upset the detent between the
northeastern and western conservatives.
> > The Republicans have engineered the biggest redistributions of
> > wealth in the history of the nation over the past 30 years. That's
> > what they are fighting to maintain in these elections- not for you
> > or me.
>
> Republicans and democrats, you should say. Each has their cronys,
> and each has used the political system to redistribute wealth to
> their friends, all at the expense of taxpayers. You seem to be blind
> to this activity on the part of democrats.
The Republicans have been far more active and aggressive in this, in
part because the traditional Democratic cronies (unions) have fallen by
the wayside in the face of the Republican onslaught against the middle
class.
> For me, this isnt about two parties, it's about regaining the
> liberties lost over the last century while preserving the gains.
> Lefty rhetoric always posits this as a choice between going forward
> and going back, but that's wrong and overly simplistic. The govt has
> accumulated too much power, and it uses that power to maintain it's
> power and enrich it's friends. Both sides do it, and we must elect
> candidates that reject the status quo. Unfortunately, they face
> challanges from the entrenched interests, and they often have a
> difficult case to make when so few people understand economics and
> (for example) the specifics of the insurance market. There is a good
> reason why economic decisions shoud be made by those who are directly
> involved (businesses and customers) rather than under the political
> process. We need to return to limited govt so that wealth is not
> controlled politically.
>
> I do not take these positions as a recent convert, or because I
> parrot talking heads. Ive been a libertarian for some 30 years,
> now, I read extensively, and I am no fan of either major party.
Libertarianism, while not something I agree with entirely, has the
benefit of being a logically consistent political philosophy- something
neither the Republicans or the Democrats can claim. Since the
Libertarian Party officially accepts a woman's right to choose abortion
(and is forced to do so by its fundamental principles, even though only
a narrow majority of the party agree), it will never gain enough votes
to win the presidency and has only a bit more chance of winning a US
congressional seat.
--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
JK
The point is not the tea party or who Michael Steele is supporting
this week. The main story is that Obama is losing the centrist
independent swing voters who helped elect him. These aren't tea party
people or Limbaugh fanatics. They are moderates for the most part who
are freaked out about the economy and the president's lack of
attention to it during his first two years in office. He appeared to
be detached and content to let reid and pelosi ram a healthcare law
through that few understand and that has introduced even more
uncertainty into the economy. Most of the economists who have studied
the law think the massive expansion of medicaid will nullify any
savings in reforming medicare. So they have not really "bent the cost
curve" as they like to claim. But they have succeeded in moving our
health system toward the lowest common denominator. High unemployment
pisses people off so they look for someone to blame. The same thing
happened to Carter. Right now we've got a detached president who
hasn't demonstrated much leadership during these tough times. He
doesn't connect with people...he doesn't "feel their pain" like
Clinton did. But that's not surprising from a guy who said in his
campaign that people are bitter and cling to guns and religion, a guy
who learned foreign policy from Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright.
rpjazzguitar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps oddly enough, I agree with most of that.
But, it's one thing to criticize Obama and the Democrats and quite
another to believe that the Republicans will be better, or even be as
good. Obama has been somewhat disappointing to many (myself included),
but I don't regret my vote. I think another rightist Congress and/or
President could be an even worse disaster than the Bush years, if
that's possible.
sheetsofsound
agreed and w was a total !@#$ disaster and replacing him with an
administration that included palin would have been one of the defining
moments of idiocy in american history. If you can't see that then the
conversation is over.
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh pardon me, I must have inadvertently entered the wrong newsgroup.
Let me see...and this little piggy ate roastbeef....
-TD
bigdog
Sorry. Spoke too soon.
Ratios in the US are indeed smaller.
db
6fingers
...and this little piggy ate roastbeef...
.......... and this little piggy spent alllllllllll day
coppin'
Bud Powell riffs
........while his little doggy did wee-wee-weeeeee
all over the apartment floor
There ya' go Danza I finished that for ya'
Steven Bornfeld
> On 21-Oct-2010, JK<franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Remember that? I learned today that my health insurance plan
>> deductible has more than doubled and my premiums have increased by
>> 40%. I think the reason for this is partly that the private insurers
>> understand they will have to compete with subsidized Obamacare.
>> Welcome to the brave new world. Work more, pay more, get less.
>
> There are two main reasoins why premiums are going up, and anyone who knows
> insurance knew it would happen.
>
> 1. Pre-existing Conditions cant be Excluded (for kids, now, but everyone
> later on): Obviousy pre-existing conditions mean that the insurer will pay
> out more in benefits. It's like being able to buy life insurance on a dead
> person. The payout is a sure thing. Higher benefits means higher premiums.
>
> 2. Kids on Until 26 Years Old: This is another expansion of coverage that
> means insurers will pay out more benefits. Again, higher benefits means
> higher premiums.
Wrong.
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/adult_child_fact_sheet.html
Steve
>
> Regarding 1: This is why the law mandates that everyone is forced to buy
> insurance. If not, people could wait until they got sick or injured to buy
> insurance and the pre-existing condition would be covered. But that would
> mean the premium would just be the expected cost of the condition (plus
> admin costs and profit margin), so there would be no point in even calling
> it insurance. It would just be a less efficient payment by a third party.
> If everyone is forced to buy insurance, the healthy people end up paying
> high premiums to cover both themselves and those who have pre-existing
> conditions.
>
> That presents some real problems in terms of insurance pricing, because a
> significant portion of healthy people's premiums would be needed to
> subsidize those who are already sick. But how is the subsidy spread over
> the insureds? It can be done many ways, and if different companies do it
> differently (and I they will), customers could cherry pick the plan where
> they pay a smaller portion of ths subsidy. You might guess that the ability
> to cherry pick causes the overall subsidy to be inadequate, with some
> companies likely going out of business. Companies will attempt to use
> marketing practices to remain profitable (like no agents in older
> communities), which will mean that some demographics will find it hard to
> get insurance. In short, it's a mess.
>
> Regarding 2: I find it hard to understand why anyone would consider this a
> good thing. Insurers already allow you to keep your kids on a policy as
> long as you like...you just have to buy the right policy and pay the extra
> premium. When the law says they must be covered, you dont have the choice
> to pay for them or not...you must pay. The law hasnt given anyone anything,
> rather it has just taken away a choice. It's as if the govt mandated that
> all guitars come with an amp. Guitars would then cost you the price of a
> guitar and an amp, even if you didnt need one. Choice is a good thing, so
> why be happy that the govt is taking it away?
>
> There are lots of other problems with the law, but these are two big ones
> that are in play right now. Most others kick in in 2014.
>
> steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Ken
Most Tea Bagger are idots. Emotional, illogical, hypocritical and
childish. Tea Bagging will be very short lived, that's for sure. I
hope they win seat in congress, so we put idots in the spotlight for
the whole nation to see at once.
Tim McNamara
<9a411bc5-f078-4bec...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
JK <franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The point is not the tea party or who Michael Steele is supporting
> this week. The main story is that Obama is losing the centrist
> independent swing voters who helped elect him.
Given that Obama is not running for re-election, he isn't losing those
voters. The Democrats who are running for re-election are, although
certainly Obama's low approval ratings are a factor just as was the case
during the Bush II administration when the Republicans lost
Congressional control.
> These aren't tea party people or Limbaugh fanatics. They are
> moderates for the most part who are freaked out about the economy and
> the president's lack of attention to it during his first two years in
> office. He appeared to be detached
Huh? For the first 18 months he was in the media about the economy damn
near every day to the point that it was annoying as hell. He continued
the Reagan-Bush II policies of rampant deficit spending to prop up a
fundamentally unsound economy, pushed through a stimulus package not
unlike Bush's, etc. There was a *lot* of attention paid to the economy.
Where ya been?
What *hasn't* happened are the needed fundamental reforms to reign in
the inherent sociopathy at the top of the market economy responsible for
the problems we face. And, since the goal of modern conservatism is to
"reduce (government) to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom
and drown it in the bathtub" (Grover has never noticed that he's
basically an anarchist, but then he's really not all that bright) the
real reforms necessary for long-term prosperity in this country are not
going to happen. Put the Republicans back in charge and it'll be
"buh-bye America."
> and content to let reid and pelosi ram a healthcare law through that
> few understand and that has introduced even more uncertainty into the
> economy. Most of the economists who have studied the law think the
> massive expansion of medicaid will nullify any savings in reforming
> medicare. So they have not really "bent the cost curve" as they like
> to claim.
Health care is expensive, simple as that. It's not going to get
cheaper. Medicaid enrollment is driven by poverty. As we enact
"conservative" policies that redistribute wealth out of the hands of
the middle and lower classes and into the hands of the already-wealthy,
we will drive up poverty and increase the Medicaid rolls.
Medicare is driven by aging. As the baby boomers age, they will be
enrolling in greater and greater numbers over the next 25 years.
In between middle class and poverty are about 45 million Americans
without health insurance. They end up running up huge unpaid costs in
health care; those costs are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and to
people paying insurance premiums.
Between Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system, about 1/3 of the American
public is on the "public option." Universal coverage would have fixed
many of the ills of the health care system; the current "reform" is not
real reform and merely reinforces the problems of the system.
> But they have succeeded in moving our health system toward
> the lowest common denominator.
Yes, the lowest common denominator being for-profit insurance companies.
Apparently we agree. Our vaunted "world class" health care system is
actually behind much of the rest of the world in terms of access and
fairness. But apparently fairness is no longer an American value since
the rise of Reagan's "voodoo economics" which is still fundamental
Republican cant.
> High unemployment pisses people off so they look for someone to
> blame. The same thing happened to Carter.
And Ford (who also had to contend with angry voters over the Oil Embargo
and resultant energy crisis), Reagan and Bush II. OTOH, when
unemployment reached historic lows during the Clinton Administration, a
different set of problems was revealed. Whomever's in office gets the
blame from one side or the other and sometimes both. That just comes
with the job.
> Right now we've got a detached president who hasn't demonstrated much
> leadership during these tough times. He doesn't connect with
> people...he doesn't "feel their pain" like Clinton did.
Clinton was a master at that- no other president in my lifetime has been
able to convey that kind of empathy. Bush II seemed much more out of
touch than Obama- Bush seemed actually out of touch with reality, not
just with people. Obama does not have the personal warmth that Reagan
or Clinton projected. This is OK by me, I am not looking for a buddy in
the White House; I am looking for a capable, intelligent administrator.
The key piece that Obama is missing is skill in dealing with Congress,
of which the health care reform bill was emblematic. He said "OK,
Congress, reform health care" without appearing to provide leadership in
shaping what that was to look like.
> But that's not surprising from a guy who said in his
> campaign that people are bitter and cling to guns and religion,
What he said was that when times are tough, "they get bitter, they cling
to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain
their frustrations." It's a fairly correct statement as far as is goes,
if put a bit baldly, and is amply demonstrated time and again (just
watch Tea Party rallies). And you'll notice that this covers both
liberals and conservatives (anti-trade resentment tending to be a
liberal affliction and religion including both).
> a guy who learned foreign policy from Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright.
Oh, good grief. More complete bullshit. You weren't doing too badly
until your relapse into Rush-speak.
Steven Bornfeld
> I'm just a simple Canadian (mind you I ran a health insurance company
> and I consult in the US on reimbursement strategies for patients) but
> I think you should understand that free choice about health services
> and medications means that you will pay what the market will bear and
> competition will not bring prices down.
Loss ratios for health insurance is regulated in some states. I know
it is in NY.
I recently received premium rebates from prior years because the plan's
loss ratio was too low.
Steve
If you don't remove the 40+
> percent profits from the Health and insurance industry through
> legislation you will pay more and more, and by default a large section
> of the population will fall below the minimum payment levels because
> of the profit requirement. You really have no free choice if you
> think about it. The only free choice you have is to decide whether
> you want to regulate health care or not. The former is difficult but
> in Canada, health is everything. If you don't have it you can at
> least get some level of quality of life. We aren't perfect and likely
> a two tiered system is going to be the result, but as long as they are
> regulated you won't be paying 25000 dollars if you have a heart
> incident and end up at Humana.
>
> To be honest, health costs at the supply side are independent of
> republican or democratic administrations. If you argue about
> administrations you have missed the health point and you don't
> understand how the system works (and doesn't work in many instances).
> But again, I don't live in your country and I'm prepared to pay
> heavier taxes to ensure that if my children have major health issues
> that I don't have to sell my house to care for them. Now go back to
> trying to formulate the issues into partisan politics if that makes
> you happy.
>
> db
Steven Bornfeld
> On 21-Oct-2010, "David J. Littleboy"<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> If you assume that everyone is covered all the time from conception, then
>> there's really no such thing as "preexisting condition". In the current
>> system, someone gets sick, they change insurance plans, and the new plan
>> thinks it sees a "preexisting condition" where the old plan just saw a
>> statistically expected disease appear.
>>
>> Which is why the concept of "preexisting condition" simply doesn't exist
>> in
>> any other industrialized country. This insane stupidity is unique to the
>> US.
>
> Economic freedom is relatively unique to the US. That's our strength, not
> our weakness.
>
> But you do make a good point. If you buy health ins when you're healthy, a
> new illness will be covered when it happens. But if you dont buy insurance
> when healthy, isnt it the risk of illness your responsibility?
It's insurance because it spreads risk. If only the sick buy
insurance, there is no reason for it to exist.
AFAIK, all states require drivers to carry liability insurance, and
most people understand this and accept it. It's the same thing with
health insurance. Yes, the young and well wind up subsidizing the old
and sick. But you're doing it every time you pay FICA or
self-employment tax anyway.
New York State has had mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions
so long as there has been a gap no longer than (I think) 60 days between
covered policies--since 1994. As a result yes--we have paid the highest
health insurance rates in the country. We did this without an insurance
mandate. Maybe the mandate will bring premiums down a bit, but I'm not
holding my breath. The insurance industry had plenty to say about what
went into the reform bill.
Steve
TD
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, lets see then Steve, would you consider exchanging some novacaine
for some of my choice licks?
-TD
Steven Bornfeld
>
> Additionally: The health care industry will jack prices up any time and
> every time that they can, and to the highest possible rates allowed.
> They like to make money, and will make as much as they can.
>
> When you try to sell water after a hurricane for 10 dollars a quart or
> whatever, you can actually go to jail I undersand. But if a corporation
> wants to do it, they can probably buy the necessary senators.
Interesting article about NYC's troubled hospitals in last week's NY
Magazine:
http://nymag.com/news/features/68991/
Steve
--
Steven Bornfeld
>>
>> in some cases that may be true. what about the responsibility of the
>> patient and the doctor not to overutilize, the system so they can
>> keep getting paid for every little service. what about pursuing a
>> reasonably healthy lifestyle instead of a third of the country being
>> obese? How about means testing medicare and social security? How
>> about limiting certain kinds of very expensive tests. Oh yeah, I
>> forgot everything that's wrong with healthcare is the fault of the
>> insurance companies. I'm sure that's all very comforting for lefties
>> who need a villian to blame for a problem which is actually very
>> complex. By the way, those insurance companies provides tens maybe
>> hundreds of thousands of jobs. Perhaps you'd like to lay them all off
>> so they can collect unemployment and sign up for an obama health
>> exchange with a government subsidy thrown in courtesy of people who
>> actually work.
>
> Reading your posts, it occurs to me that maybe you should try thinking
> instead of regurgitating Limbaugh-Beck-O'Reilly soundbites.
Wait a minute, Tim--there is a responsibility of the patient to take
care of themselves and of the doctors/hospitals not to overutilize. But
the Tea Party wants less regulation, not more--and how are you going to
accomplish that without regulation?
Oh, I know--there will be regulation, but it will probably be
collusionary regulation by the insurance companies rationing
benefits--not the gummn't. Then I guess it's OK, because they're really
only looking after our best interests.
I feel much better now...
Steve
It's sad to
> see how far conservatism in the US has fallen in the past 30 years. A
> reasoned, principled conservatism is a vital force in the success of the
> American experiment, but we no longer have that. Conservatism has
> become the home of cynically manufactured and exploited rage,
> manipulated wedge issues, and doublespeak soundbites. The current
> Republican Party cares not one whit about Joe the Plumber's prosperity
> or Jane the Christian's values- they only care to dupe Joe and Jane into
> voting for them so they can stay in power and keep bleeding the
> taxpayers to benefit their cronies. The Republicans have engineered the
> biggest redistributions of wealth in the history of the nation over the
> past 30 years. That's what they are fighting to maintain in these
> elections- not for you or me.
>
Steven Bornfeld
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So, lets see then Steve, would you consider exchanging some novacaine
> for some of my choice licks?
>
> -TD
I think you get the short end of the um, stick on that one, Tony!
Steve
--
6fingers
Let me fix that for ya' buddy.
"Bagger" should be BaggerS
"idots" ( snicker. snicker )
You even misspelled IDIOTS, forgot the "I" there buddy.
A high school drop-out are ya' Kenny ?
Would it be impolite to ask who the idiot really is ?
Ken is obviously a
"TeabagEE"
Pucker up Kenny-Boy, it'll be balls on the chin for you
before beddy-bye-bye time Tuesday Nov. 2nd.
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE !
p.s. Don't forget to shave your chin real close !
Chickenhead
Insurance companies have to compete with "subsidized" insurance, so they
RAISED your premium and deductible? That's completely bass-ackwards. Have
you even thought through the absurdity of such a premise? Even the most
die-hard free-market capitalist couldn't make that work. I don't agree with
the premise that they have to "compete with subsidized Obamacare" to begin
with, but even if I did, how on earth does raising your premium and
deductible help them compete? Someone would have to be truly gullible to
even consider such pretzel logic as anything but absurd.
You're essentially saying that because the insurance companies are worried
they might not have the same license to rip you off in the future, that
they're trying to grab as much as they can from you while they can, and that
somehow that's the fault of Obamacare.
Unlike Yours Truly, you have obviously never worked for an insurance
company. Do you want to know why your insurers raised your premium? The
reason is far simpler: They did it because they can. "Obamacare," as you
call it, has little to do with it other than not going far enough.
Blaming Obama for this makes about as much sense as saying that the long
line at the Post Office proves government doesn't work, so we should cut
funding for the U.S. Postal Service. Or maybe you think we should cut the
FDA's funding for inspections, since so much tainted food keeps slipping
through to the market?
Obama's health plan sucks because it didn't go even close to far enough.
What sucks is that he didn't give us a government option or single-payer.
Obama needs grow a pair and send those insurance bastards into the deep
fryer they deserve. Obama's health care plan may suck, but the insurance
companies are way way worse. If you think any freakin' insurance company
cares one tiny little bit about you or your family, you are more clueless
than bat guano.
The only thing that would have stopped your rates and deductible from going
up, and the only thing that's going to ensure the insurance companies pay up
if you actually truly need your insurance, is going to be the Big Bad Evil
Government. Try getting your information from somewhere other than Fox
News.
"JK" <franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:296102a6-7e05-4bcc...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
6fingers
I was regularly tea-bagged as a teenager and eventually arrived at a
point where I enjoyed the taste of salty balls in my mouth. So much
in fact that I have become a yoga devote so that I might one day enjoy
the divine pleasure of tasting my own balls. When this day comes I'll
will stop bothering you guys on rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz and get
my jollies from a pose I've innovated and call salty ball marinated
with anal juice salutation. Until then TAKE A WALK.
ps: I will never post clips. I'm a total and complete puss. Total
puss. Total. I'm telling you so you'll stop asking...OK?
Alright, time in!
st...@steve.com
On 23-Oct-2010, Steven Bornfeld <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
> Wait a minute, Tim--there is a responsibility of the patient to take
> care of themselves and of the doctors/hospitals not to overutilize. But
> the Tea Party wants less regulation, not more--and how are you going to
> accomplish that without regulation?
Simple. You treat premiums and out of pocket expenses the same for tax
purposes. There will be no more advantage to dollar one insurance over out
of pocket payments, so people will move to higher deuctable plans with
higher co-pay. They will once again be price sensitive, and customers
(patients) will bring down their own costs and cause the health care
industry to become more competitive.
Health insurance should be like any otyher insurane; claims are the
exception not the rule. In other words, true insurance covers the
unexpected, not the routine and certain.
> Oh, I know--there will be regulation, but it will probably be
> collusionary regulation by the insurance companies rationing
> benefits--not the gummn't.
YOU buy the amount of coverage you want, so YOU ration your insurance
coverage yourself. You will get what you pay for.
steve
Chickenhead
you, David.
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:orudnfw7q9amQF3R...@giganews.com...
>
>
> But I agree that "would be no point in even calling it insurance".
> Civilized countries don't let its citizens go bankrupt over medical costs,
> don't let them die because they can't afford medicine. This insane
> stupidity is unique to the US.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
JK
I don't listen to Fox so go fuck yourself smartass. So I'm not a
healthcare economist...I can see from your post that you aren't
either, unless left wing cliches and glib, smart ass remarks are now a
substitute for knowing what you are talking about. Apparently you and
a couple million other people who have worked in an insurance company
at some point in their life must all be the experts now.
I've had private insurance as an employer and as an employee for
myself and my family fo over 30 years and it has worked out well.
We've received world class care. There are millions of families just
like mine that have purchased private insurance and gotten a good
result.
You are saying that the obama legislation has no effect on the private
insurance market and they are raising rates only because they can. You
are also saying implicitly that keeping an extra person on a policy
( whether someone actually does this or not) until age 26 and
excluding pre existing conditions has no effect on the costs of
providing insurance. You would be dead wrong about that. You are also
implying that an aging population, increased medical technology, over
utilization and chronic health conditions have no effect on the bottom
line of a private insurance company. Most people who study this stuff
will tell you that you are all wrong about that too.
I may not have stated my initial post very well but what you are
saying makes no sense either. The cost of providing insurance has been
impacted by the changes of the obama legislation and will continue to
be as more of the provisions kick in. We now have two systems and one
impacts the other. Apparently you are also saying implicitly that the
government health exchanges will not compete with private insurance.
They will, and the incentive for employers to provide health insurance
will be undercut. Many people in the exchanges will receive government
subsidies at the expense of taxpayers who work. Customers of private
insurance companies will not be subsidized. To me that looks like a
big rush to the bottom, the lowest common denominator health system if
you will. It's a two tier system that will lower the quality of care
and provide health subsidies for people who don't work at the expense
of people who do. Wait till 2014 when tens of millions are added to
medicaid. That is the centerpiece of the Obama heaIthcare plan. I hope
you like low quality care and long waits to see a doctor because
that's what you are going to get.
JK
wrote:
the additional cost of keeping a kid on your insurance up to age 26
is .7%... ??? I wonder who made up that little bit of fiction.
Steven Bornfeld
The health care industry is plenty competitive in NYC. Still, my docs
say the reimbursment rates haven't gone up in many years, and many are
dropping their participation. My deductibles are plenty high, and we
pay over $2K/month. How high you figure my deductible would have to be
to get my premium down? BTW, my premium has more than tripled since the
late '90s.
Steve
Steven Bornfeld
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001
>
> the additional cost of keeping a kid on your insurance up to age 26
> is .7%... ??? I wonder who made up that little bit of fiction.
The wording is deceptive. It says that "average family premiums" would
rise by "as little as .7%". I assume that's for all families, not just
the ones who choose to keep their kids on the plan. As it is, the
family rate is the same whether you have 1 kid or 6. By the time my
daughter is 26 I'll be 70, so I'll be on Medicare (if it still exists),
and it will probably be a whole other ball of wax for me if I'm still
around.
Steve
rpjazzguitar
will save money, but that's hard to believe even for this Obama
supporter.
But, it's important to recognize that lots of people had health care
coverage they weren't paying for before the bill. The people that
chose not to buy health coverage knew perfectly well that they could
go to an ER if they really needed medical attention.
So, the money-into-the-system does go up to the extent that some of
those people will now pay.
Also, the mandate for a certain percentage of premiums to be returned
as health care is going stop some egregious excesses. That's another
piece in the right direction.
I think Obama decided that something was better than nothing. I
suspect he's right, but I also expect that the system will change.
With Republican control, we'd get the same thing we had. Premiums
rising, coverage going down, insurance companies returning as low as
65% of premiums in actual healthcare and tens of millions of people
getting health care for free at ER's and County facilities.
Chickenhead
I don't buy the premise that health care should be run as a for-profit
business. I believe health care should be a right and no more a privilege
than clean air or the right to protection from violent crime.
You do have some misconceptions about how the insurance industry makes
money, but that's understandable considering how much they spend
perpetuating those misconceptions. Likely you wouldn't be interested in
anything I have to say in that regard since, as you say, I'm "not a
healthcare economist."
Even if you did tell me to go fuck myself, I'm glad to hear you don't listen
to Fox and consider being accused of listening to Fox an insult. Maybe
there's hope for you after all.
"JK" <franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9a9bd4af-2de2-44b3...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
sheetsofsound
> Just a little time out:
>
> I was regularly tea-bagged as a teenager and eventually arrived at a
> point where I enjoyed the taste of salty balls in my mouth. So much
> in fact that I have become a yoga devote so that I might one day enjoy
> the divine pleasure of tasting my own balls. When this day comes I'll
> will stop bothering you guys on rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz and get
> my jollies from a pose I've innovated and call salty ball marinated
> with anal juice salutation. Until then TAKE A WALK.
>
From the horses...err...mouth. So to speak. Why do you bother with
this group? You're obviously someone with zero talent for
communication and music.
sheetsofsound
> I don't listen to Fox so go fuck yourself smartass.
what a load of crap. Your viewpoint is practically word-for-word from
what is regurgitated regularly on foxspews and your not so subtle
trolling does not escape notice. Go post in alt.guitar.amps or
alt.firearms where your viewpoint will be accepted as gospel according
to fat, white christian men.
JK
<kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> Too much there for me to respond to. I'd be writing all day and all night.
Just a few short responses would have been okay but I understand you
may not be capable, even though your old job at the insurance company
makes you an expert in all this.
>
> I don't buy the premise that health care should be run as a for-profit
> business. I believe health care should be a right and no more a privilege
> than clean air or the right to protection from violent crime.
\
You are entitled to a utopian vision but that's not the world were
living in now. Health care has a cost no matter who is running the
show. you can pay the insurance company or you can pay high taxes to
the government for a sub standard plan. I assume you would prefer the
latter. Lefties want to raise taxes because they think the government
always knows better.
>
> You do have some misconceptions about how the insurance industry makes
> money, but that's understandable considering how much they spend
> perpetuating those misconceptions. Likely you wouldn't be interested in
> anything I have to say in that regard since, as you say, I'm "not a
> healthcare economist."
You really are are glib, condescending SOB. You tell people how little
they know and how much you know but you can't really deliver the
goods. You've got nothing to say except blathering about a utopia that
nobody lives in.
>
> Even if you did tell me to go fuck myself, I'm glad to hear you don't listen
> to Fox and consider being accused of listening to Fox an insult. Maybe
> there's hope for you after all.
condescending smart ass motherfuckers deserve to be told to go fuck
themselves. so yeah, go fuck yourself.
>
David J. Littleboy
On Oct 23, 11:33 pm, "Chickenhead"
<kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@YOUhoVERYtmail.MUCHcom> wrote:
> Too much there for me to respond to. I'd be writing all day and all night.
Just a few short responses would have been okay but I understand you
may not be capable, even though your old job at the insurance company
makes you an expert in all this.
>
> I don't buy the premise that health care should be run as a for-profit
> business. I believe health care should be a right and no more a privilege
> than clean air or the right to protection from violent crime.
\
You are entitled to a utopian vision
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's not utopian. It's the way every other industrialized country works.
> but that's not the world were living in now.
Only the US messes this up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Health care has a cost no matter who is running the
show. you can pay the insurance company or you can pay high taxes to
the government for a sub standard plan.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not only do we fail to insure vast numbers of people, but we get the worst
results in the world. Sure, some of that's due to our own individual
stupidit choices, but a lot of it isn't.
The plans in England, Canada, and Japan aren't "substandard", they're
substantially better.
> You do have some misconceptions about how the insurance industry makes
> money, but that's understandable considering how much they spend
> perpetuating those misconceptions. Likely you wouldn't be interested in
> anything I have to say in that regard since, as you say, I'm "not a
> healthcare economist."
You really are are glib, condescending SOB. You tell people how little
they know and how much you know but you can't really deliver the
goods. You've got nothing to say except blathering about a utopia that
nobody lives in.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's the utopia that everyone else in the industrialized world lives in.
David J. Littleboy
"JK" <franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
I assume you don't want to know the truth about the new health care law, but
in case I'm wrong, here's a start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24sun1.html?ref=opinion
rpjazzguitar
the Republican ideas about health care.
Of course, we've already had competition among insurers. Here's my
view, just based on personal experience, about what happens.
The insurance companies are for-profit companies. If they don't pay
for medical care, they get to keep the money.
The first thing they do is try to pay doctors less per procedure. They
do that by trying to get doctors to contract for lower fees. Doctors
who don't have enough patients have a strong incentive to take the
deal. The next thing they do is try to limit the number of procedures
conducted. For that, they hire "care managers". These people make a
living based on the difference between the what the doctors request
and what the company approves. Another place they save money is in
processing the payments. The doctors are frequently underpaid and are
forced to waste staff time chasing bills. There was one California
company which made the news for telling their accounts payable people
to refuse payment on every 10th bill they processed.
On the other end of things, they spend money marketing to companies.
And, apparently, they spare no expense paying their executives. They
promise the companies low premiums and then they try to make money by
avoiding actually paying for services.
Clinton's "managed competition", as I understood it, was designed to
take advantage of this set of incentives to reduce costs.
Obama's plan leaves much of the system in place but increases
regulation to avoid some of the more egregious excesses.
The Republican ideas seem to involve leaving the system as it is.
Meaning, you'd better be careful if you get a chronic condition (and
who wont?) and you're going to spend time fighting with the company if
you get an illness which has a cheap treatment and an expensive
treatment. I have the impression that the Republican politicians are
more concerned with the company's profit than the consumer's
healthcare.
The best model seems to be Kaiser. Kaiser returns the highest
percentage of premium in the form of actual care. The doctors run it.
And Consumer Reports indicates that they have the highest customer
satisfaction. Kaiser, is far from perfect and has been in the news
periodically for some real problems, but it's the best (or close) of a
bad lot.
My father (in his 90's) has been well served by Medicare.
My thought (and, unlike every other guitar player, I am not a health
insurance expert <g>) is that something like Medicare for all, but
with significant copays would be the best thing. My reasoning is that
the demand for medical care is more price elastic than most people
think. Some people will run to the doctor for trivial problems -- if
it's cheap. It needs to be not-cheap to do that. But, after a certain
amount of out of pocket expenses, major medical kicks in. That way,
the services aren't overused and nobody is financially ruined.
Tim McNamara
<1a1df252-d2a2-481d...@w30g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Ken <akoh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The problem is that the people who would need to see the idiocy won't.
So far it appears that most Tea Party approved candidates are pretty
much unqualified for the job. They'll get elected, get into office and
find that- like their predecessors- there is almost nothing they can do
to change the system. Then the right wingers will feel as betrayed by
the Tea Party congress-people as the liberals are at Obama.
I don't know why the liberals are ticked as Obama campaigned very
clearly as a moderate, not a liberal, and his policies have been mostly
moderate. I'm a liberal and I knew he wasn't going to be representing
my viewpoint. He's kept a surprising number of his campaign promises:
credit card bill of rights, limiting the relationships between lobbyists
and government, limiting earmarks, convening bipartisan commissions on
repairing relationships between the executive and legislative, improving
bipartisanship on foreign policy, reducing foreclosures and requiring
increased action from lenders to mitigate foreclosure, a permanent tax
cut for the middle class and below, health care reform, withdrawal from
Iraq, bringing Taliban commanders to the negotiating table once they
realized they were not safe in Pakistan and possibly starting towards
the end of the war in Afghanistan, etc. There remain a bunch of
incomplete campaign promises and some that don't even seem to have been
started such as making it easier for labor to organize. Wall Street
reform has not yet adequately happened, nor has comprehensive
immigration reform and education reform as far as I can recall right now.
JK
> "JK" <franzkafka1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
ummm...protection from violent crime and polluted air? You live in a
city, right? that might be a goal we strive for but it's not the world
we live in. Consider why people from all over the world come here for
medical care?. I had to go to the Mayo clinic a couple years ago and
there were people there from all over the world seeking care. We have
the best care and the best teaching hospitals in the world in the US.
Our system may be screwed up but to listen to the people on this group
you would think we haven't accomplished anything except to hurt
people. That mentality is just so skewed and wrong. That's a sacred
cow of the left to identify with their own subjective analysis of the
little guy, the downtrodden. But who is more downtrodden, the guy who
works everyday and pays a premium, tries to stay healthy and rarely
utilizes medical care, or the guy who could have goten some modest
coverage but didn't and then went to the emergency room for a huge
bill on the taxpayers dime. who is really losing out here? In my view,
the guy who played by the rules is the one who is getting screwed. The
guy who gamed the system is off scott free.
As far as I know, health budgets and doctor salaries are capped iower
in those other countries than what we have in the US so they are
rationing care in a way as well. They have to be. Based on what I've
heard people in some countries like Canada for example have to buy
extra policies anyway even though they have single payer because the
basic plans don;t cover enough. Have you looked at the situations of
the other industrialized countries lately. They are all in economic
disarray because they've over spent on public expenditures. They are
all cutting back now.
As I understand it, medical students are subsidized in some other
countries such as Germany. They don't have massive student loans to
pay back. How could someone in the US pay a couple hundred thousand or
more for school to enter a profession where salaries are capped. imo,
you have to pay to get quality, and the path obama is on will lower
the quality we have by reducing what's good about our system to the
lowest common denominator. I think single payer could be great but
it's not the economic system or political culture we live in in the
US. When you start taking away choice from people and start handing
down mandates they get pissed.
David J. Littleboy
"JK" <franzka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 12:52 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> It's the utopia that everyone else in the industrialized world lives in.
ummm...protection from violent crime and polluted air? You live in a
city, right?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes. Crime is low, essentially no guns, and Japan's emissions laws have been
stricter than even California's for decades now.
>>>>>>>>>
that might be a goal we strive for but it's not the world
we live in. Consider why people from all over the world come here for
medical care?.
<<<<<<<<<
We're the richest country in the world and have the best advanced care. That
doesn't do the vast numbers of Americans who don't have insurance any good.
We're the richest country in the world. It's a gross and disgusting
embarassment that we treat our own citizens so badly.
>>>>>>>>
I had to go to the Mayo clinic a couple years ago and
there were people there from all over the world seeking care. We have
the best care and the best teaching hospitals in the world in the US.
<<<<<<<<
And the worst health care delivery system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Our system may be screwed up but to listen to the people on this group
you would think we haven't accomplished anything except to hurt
people. That mentality is just so skewed and wrong.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
But the amount of damage we do to our own citizens is horrific. It needs
fixing. Sticking your head in the sand and shouting "MAYO CLINIC" 17 times
isn't going to help people without insurance.
And, really. Getting health insurance right isn't going to change the
quality of US medical research and high end care.
JK
> "JK" <franzkafka1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 12:52 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's the utopia that everyone else in the industrialized world lives in.
>
> ummm...protection from violent crime and polluted air? You live in a
> city, right?
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Yes. Crime is low, essentially no guns, and Japan's emissions laws have been
> stricter than even California's for decades now.
>
>
> that might be a goal we strive for but it's not the world
> we live in. Consider why people from all over the world come here for
> medical care?.
> <<<<<<<<<
>
> We're the richest country in the world and have the best advanced care. That
> doesn't do the vast numbers of Americans who don't have insurance any good.
> We're the richest country in the world. It's a gross and disgusting
> embarassment that we treat our own citizens so badly.
You know man, this is really crap, when you consider that employer
based insurance provides millions with great care, all public
employees and politicians get great care and all unions get great
care. DOD employees have their own system and Vets also have a system.
This all comes from the government so actually we are already pretty
far down the road o a single payer, system. Yes there are people who
are unserved and they should get something too. Some of them choose
not to purchase modest coverage when they could, some of them choose
to get it for free from the emergency room after they get sick,
millions are on medicaid and millions more are on medicare which are
also paid by government. Dude, there are hundreds of mllions of people
who receive excellent medical care in the US. There is an uninsured
problem but it is not insurmountable and it is not going to be solved
by the sad sacks who have a knee jerk need to trash everything that is
good about what we do have.
>
>
>
> I had to go to the Mayo clinic a couple years ago and
> there were people there from all over the world seeking care. We have
> the best care and the best teaching hospitals in the world in the US.
> <<<<<<<<
>
> And the worst health care delivery system.
Yes, you made that clear. Well, I've done pretty well with it as have
many many people that I've worked with and known. I doubt any of them
would have opted to go to England or Japan for their health care. I
kno wI wouldn't. received excellent care here.
>
>
>
> Our system may be screwed up but to listen to the people on this group
> you would think we haven't accomplished anything except to hurt
> people. That mentality is just so skewed and wrong.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> But the amount of damage we do to our own citizens is horrific. It needs
> fixing. Sticking your head in the sand and shouting "MAYO CLINIC" 17 times
> isn't going to help people without insurance.
I only said it once as an example of a good aspect of our system. You
can't seem to acknowledge what is good only what is bad.
>
> And, really. Getting health insurance right isn't going to change the
> quality of US medical research and high end care.
I'm not so sure about that, and how resources would be allocated.
Perhaps one of the former insurance company workers can chime in and
explain it all.
>
rpjazzguitar
> the guy who played by the rules is the one who is getting screwed. The
> guy who gamed the system is off scott free.
The new health bill addresses that. The Republican alternatives do
not.