Health Insurance Lobby Sabotages Reform?

applecorped · 13th October 2009, 05:28 AM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65f9a900-b...44feab49a.html

Supporters of President Obama accused the health insurance industry of attempted “sabotage” after it issued a report by PwC, which estimated that premiums would rise much faster under the proposed reforms than they would have done otherwise.

The 26-page report marked an abrupt end to the unlikely alliance between Mr Obama and America’s Health Insurance Plans – the main industry lobby group, which has spent about $100m on advertising to support the reforms.

Peephole · 13th October 2009, 06:32 AM

Wow, that deal Obama made with them sure paid off.

WildCat · 13th October 2009, 06:43 AM

AP story:

Quote:

The industry said the cost increases result from new taxes and a weakening of the penalties for failing to get insurance that would let Americans postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

No kidding! This is something obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, isn't it? Or maybe not...

Quote:

"I really don't think it's worth the paper it's written on," AARP Executive Vice President John Rother told reporters Monday. "If anyone believes it, that's a problem."

...Democrats and their allies criticized the report as biased. Health economist Len Nichols of the New America Foundation contended that, among other problems, the study failed to take into account the impact of subsidies that would help low- and middle-income people buy coverage. He said it also left out a key expected impact of a proposed new tax on high-value insurance plans, which is a reduction in the use of health services.

Dear FSM, what the hell is wrong with these people? Why would anyone pay thousands for coverage when they can just pay a small yearly fine until they get sick, and then buy it and have their pre-existing condition covered?

And from the link in the OP:

Quote:

The report estimates that premiums for the average household would rise to $17,200 a year by 2013 under the proposals compared with $15,500 without the reforms. Today’s average annual premium is $12,300.

This is another problem with the Baucus plan - there is nothing in it to stop the ridiculous rate of health care inflation, let alone roll the cost back to levels comparable to the rest of the western world.

You simply cannot reduce the costs by attacking insurance alone, since all private health insurance premiums combined total only ~$1,400 per capita.

What a pathetic mess.

Arcade22 · 13th October 2009, 06:53 AM

I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true.

WildCat · 13th October 2009, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true.

Have you seen the Baucus plan, supposedly "the best we [meaning Congress] can do"?

This is why. Everything touched by Congress turns to feces. They had an opportunity here to really do something worthwhile, and they completely screwed it up.

DavidJames · 13th October 2009, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true.

Take those "some people" in your last sentence, add most Republicans (who would be against breathing if Obama endorsed it) and then add those that think UHC is socialism and you have enough people to make it a non-starter.

parky76 · 13th October 2009, 07:35 AM

I'm sure the health insurance companies just have the people's interest at heart. I'm very sure.

Alt+F4 · 13th October 2009, 08:01 AM

There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times on extremely expensive fertility treatments. Does anyone know how any of these UHC plans would cover this? Also, are these treatments covered in countries that already have UHC?

ksbluesfan · 13th October 2009, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times on extremely expensive fertility treatments. Does anyone know how any of these UHC plans would cover this? Also, are these treatments covered in countries that already have UHC?

I don't know about UHC coverage, but I know most insurance companies do not cover fertility treatments. As expensive as IVF is, the real cost comes from the care of pre-mature babies. Once the baby is in the womb, insurance coverage starts again. I assume this is due to the fact that it would be difficult to provide coverage for somebody who had triplets naturally but not for somebody who transferred 3 embryoes.

Fertility treatments are starting to offer incentives to transfer one embryo at a time, but it's not wide-spread because they want their success rates to be high.

Doubt · 13th October 2009, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true.

What is happening is that people are falling for the old FUD bit:

Fear
Uncertainty
Dread

Those who think they stand to gain from the status quo have spread FUD in an attempt to sabotage the reform. The use of such tactics in politics is not unique to the US. The powerful companies that don't want the government taking over health care have much to lose.

Microsoft has used the same tactic to fight against all alternatives to Windows. When FUD fails, the next step is to adopt and then alter standards to maintain dominate positions.

The good news is that even the insurance companies know that the status quo cannot continue given the rising costs. They will then offer up their own reform ideas that makes sure they get to stay in the game.

Beerina · 13th October 2009, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true.

Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population.

That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this.

Gord_in_Toronto · 13th October 2009, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population.

That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this.

Let me know when your house burns down.

Snide · 13th October 2009, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population.

That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this.

I didn't realize the plan was to take over everything. Anyway, I merely want to add that stating it's only for the 14% (or whatever number it is) is disingenuous. The under-insured also suffer under the current system. There are people being ruined because the coverage they had wasn't enough. What number that is, I do not know...

boooeee · 13th October 2009, 09:39 AM

As Wildcat said, this is common sense. You don't have to like or even believe insurance companies and the consulting firms they hire. If you remove pre-existing conditions, but don't require people to get insurance (or make the penalties too weak), premiums will rise.

This is not UHC. In fact, it's practically the opposite. It will incent more healthy members to opt out of coverage and then just pay the nominal penalty when they get sick.

And the people that will suffer the most are the ones that have acted the most responsibly so far: the people currently covered in the individual market. They bought insurance before they got sick like they were supposed to. And now they are going to be forced to shoulder the burden of the higher cost risk pool.

Snide · 13th October 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by boooeee

As Wildcat said, this is common sense. You don't have to like or even believe insurance companies and the consulting firms they hire. If you remove pre-existing conditions, but don't require people to get insurance (or make the penalties too weak), premiums will rise.

This is not UHC. In fact, it's practically the opposite. It will incent more healthy members to opt out of coverage and then just pay the nominal penalty when they get sick.

And the people that will suffer the most are the ones that have acted the most responsibly so far: the people currently covered in the individual market. They bought insurance before they got sick like they were supposed to. And now they are going to be forced to shoulder the burden of the higher cost risk pool.

Agreed. The key then, perhaps, is in making sure the penalties are not too weak.

ksbluesfan · 13th October 2009, 09:56 AM

The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else.

WildCat · 13th October 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Snide

Agreed. The key then, perhaps, is in making sure the penalties are not too weak.

Unfortunately, the trend is making the penalties weaker. What started off as too weak got even more weak as the legislation moved forward. It defies logic.

WildCat · 13th October 2009, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else.

Agreed, but as currently written the incentive is actually to put off buying insurance until you actually get sick. This actually shrinks the risk pool, while simultaneously making it less healthy.

This is monumentally stupid even by US Congressional standards.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population.

That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this.

I have said that about the FBI for ages. The Pinkertons used to be all we needed, and made a profit too. Damn socialists and their federal law enforcement.

WildCat · 13th October 2009, 10:08 AM

This does give me a business idea though.

A company that will arrange a health insurance purchase for you even if you are incapacitated. Get in a car wreck, for example, and you wil be enrolled in a health insurance plan before you arrive at the hospital, which the law mandates will cover your pre-existing condition!

I'll call it "Just In Time" or something. THE most cost-effective insurance plan possible!

Darth Rotor · 13th October 2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else.

Should lower premiums for everyone else ...

Do you trust the insurance industry not to dip into our pockets until forced to do so?

DR

ksbluesfan · 13th October 2009, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Should lower premiums for everyone else ...

Do you trust the insurance industry not to dip into our pockets until forced to do so?

DR

No, that's why I would prefer a single payer system. I don't trust the government much more than I trust corporations, but they seem to do a good enough job with Medicare.

eeyore1954 · 13th October 2009, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Peephole

Wow, that deal Obama made with them sure paid off.

Maybe they are double agents.

MattusMaximus · 13th October 2009, 08:18 PM

Based upon the results of today's vote in the Senate Finance Committee, I'd say the last minute FUD strategy was a DUD.

firecoins · 14th October 2009, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

No, that's why I would prefer a single payer system. I don't trust the government much more than I trust corporations, but they seem to do a good enough job with Medicare.

depends on who you talk to.

Alt+F4 · 14th October 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

No, that's why I would prefer a single payer system. I don't trust the government much more than I trust corporations, but they seem to do a good enough job with Medicare.

Many Americans who need to go into a nursing home hid away their money so Medicare doesn't take it all. The average nursing home costs $10,000 a month. Medicare makes you spend almost every cent you have (especially if you're single), then after you're bankrupt it will start paying.

Biscuit · 14th October 2009, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true.

Because it would allow welfare queens in their cadillacs to get free boob jobs.

Peephole · 14th October 2009, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times on extremely expensive fertility treatments. Does anyone know how any of these UHC plans would cover this? Also, are these treatments covered in countries that already have UHC?

In Belgium, up to six treatments up to the age 42 are covered, and costs should be limited to about €500.

Marc39 · 14th October 2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Snide

There are people being ruined because the coverage they had wasn't enough.

Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance.

The consequences of reckless self-indulgence are not my worry.

Rolfe · 14th October 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Marc39

Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance.

Wow, what a great country America is, where people have to pour every spare cent above basic living essentials into the maw of the health insurance companies.

I sure wish I lived there - not!

Rolfe.

Magyar · 14th October 2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Agreed. The key then, perhaps, is in making sure the penalties are not too weak.

OK, but then aren't you back to the same reason why people don't have insurance in the first place!? It's too expensive

Quote:

The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else.

Says WHO? What I mean is, is there a provision in the bill to cut, limit cost or yearly increases? If not, surely you are NOT suggesting that the insurance companies will lower their premiums out of the kindness of their hearts NOW that there is a legal penalty for not buying their products! I mean even in this economy where everything has dropped out of the bottom, health insurance was the only cost that went UP double digits.

Edit - In ma there is the masshealth connector that is supposed to get you insurance based on "discounted" costs The insurance agencies and MA makes a bis stink about what insurance should cost etc. But if you ACTUALLY called the insurance companies on the list to get those policies the cost magically quadruples.

Until there is UHC I think this is nothing but a shell game for insurance companies to further increase their profits and nothing else.

parky76 · 14th October 2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Marc39

Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance.

The consequences of reckless self-indulgence are not my worry.

Israel has universal health care. But I guess what's good for the Jews isn't nececessarily good for the Goys.

Marc39 · 14th October 2009, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Wow, what a great country America is, where people have to pour every spare cent above basic living essentials into the maw of the health insurance companies.

I sure wish I lived there - not!

Rolfe.

It's not my responsibility to instruct people on how to budget properly. If they cannot do so, that's not my concern. Cut back or get a better job.

Snide · 14th October 2009, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Marc39

Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance.

The consequences of reckless self-indulgence are not my worry.

Sure. That's why all of them are under-insured. Because they're out spending frivolously.

You realize with posts like this, you are advancing the cause of public option advocates, correct?

Marc39 · 14th October 2009, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Snide

Sure. That's why all of them are under-insured. Because they're out spending frivolously.

Many are. Over-consumption in America is no great revelation.

Fiona · 14th October 2009, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times on extremely expensive fertility treatments. Does anyone know how any of these UHC plans would cover this? Also, are these treatments covered in countries that already have UHC?

Depends on what kind of treatment you are talking about but generally if it is IVF you can have 3 cycles of treatment on the NHS though it is not recommended after age 42 and is often not offered after 39. No charge to the patient.

Magyar · 14th October 2009, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by ksbluesfan

No, that's why I would prefer a single payer system. I don't trust the government much more than I trust corporations, but they seem to do a good enough job with Medicare.

This is the thing I haven't seen ANYONE really talk about.

According to http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._excess_co.php

the US spends almost TWICE as much per capita than any other nation with UHC in any form to cover a 1/5th ( I am guessing on the number of people covered under medicare)

And NO ONE against health care reform has proposed scaping that - I am guessing that this is do more because they want to be re elected than anything else.

I also find it ironic that a vast majority of the people against UHC are people elderly.

Snide · 14th October 2009, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Marc39

Many are.

So screw the rest of them. Let's lump them all under the same label.

Marc39 · 14th October 2009, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Snide

So screw the rest of them. Let's lump them all under the same label.

The truly indigent have a safety net. Families and friends should also kick in. All others should live responsibly and budget for healthcare insurance. Yes, even if it means procreating less and giving up unnecessary expenditures.

TriskettheKid · 14th October 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Marc39

The truly indigent have a safety net. All others should live responsibly and budget for healthcare insurance. Yes, even if it means procreating less and giving up unnecessary expenditures.

And what if a saintly insurer denies a claim, say if someone gets cancer?

You think not buying an HDTV will allow a person to pony up the tens of thousands of dollars needed to fight the cancer?

13th October 2009, 05:28 AM	#1
applecorped Rotten to the core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,680	Health Insurance Lobby Sabotages Reform? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65f9a900-b...44feab49a.html Supporters of President Obama accused the health insurance industry of attempted “sabotage” after it issued a report by PwC, which estimated that premiums would rise much faster under the proposed reforms than they would have done otherwise. The 26-page report marked an abrupt end to the unlikely alliance between Mr Obama and America’s Health Insurance Plans – the main industry lobby group, which has spent about $100m on advertising to support the reforms.
	__________________ It's all in the mind.

13th October 2009, 06:32 AM	#2
Peephole Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,328	Wow, that deal Obama made with them sure paid off.
	__________________ 911science The Field

13th October 2009, 06:43 AM	#3
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,975	AP story: Quote: The industry said the cost increases result from new taxes and a weakening of the penalties for failing to get insurance that would let Americans postpone getting coverage until they get sick. No kidding! This is something obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, isn't it? Or maybe not... Quote: "I really don't think it's worth the paper it's written on," AARP Executive Vice President John Rother told reporters Monday. "If anyone believes it, that's a problem." ...Democrats and their allies criticized the report as biased. Health economist Len Nichols of the New America Foundation contended that, among other problems, the study failed to take into account the impact of subsidies that would help low- and middle-income people buy coverage. He said it also left out a key expected impact of a proposed new tax on high-value insurance plans, which is a reduction in the use of health services. Dear FSM, what the hell is wrong with these people? Why would anyone pay thousands for coverage when they can just pay a small yearly fine until they get sick, and then buy it and have their pre-existing condition covered? And from the link in the OP: Quote: The report estimates that premiums for the average household would rise to $17,200 a year by 2013 under the proposals compared with $15,500 without the reforms. Today’s average annual premium is $12,300. This is another problem with the Baucus plan - there is nothing in it to stop the ridiculous rate of health care inflation, let alone roll the cost back to levels comparable to the rest of the western world. You simply cannot reduce the costs by attacking insurance alone, since all private health insurance premiums combined total only ~$1,400 per capita. What a pathetic mess.
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

13th October 2009, 06:53 AM	#4
Arcade22 Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 542	I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true.
	__________________ Pro gloria et patria Ten subway stops from downtown Stockholm is "little Mogadishu" a drab suburb of the Swedish capital where radical Islamists are said to be recruiting the sons of Somali immigrants for jihad in the Horn of Africa.

13th October 2009, 07:00 AM	#5
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,975	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true. Have you seen the Baucus plan, supposedly "the best we [meaning Congress] can do"? This is why. Everything touched by Congress turns to feces. They had an opportunity here to really do something worthwhile, and they completely screwed it up.
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

13th October 2009, 07:22 AM	#6
DavidJames Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,749	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true. Take those "some people" in your last sentence, add most Republicans (who would be against breathing if Obama endorsed it) and then add those that think UHC is socialism and you have enough people to make it a non-starter.
DavidJames Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,749	__________________ Talk about quality audio/video/home theater on a budget here. Blogging on my hobbies including The Android Adventure here.

13th October 2009, 07:35 AM	#7
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,493	I'm sure the health insurance companies just have the people's interest at heart. I'm very sure.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

13th October 2009, 08:01 AM	#8
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 4,852	There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times on extremely expensive fertility treatments. Does anyone know how any of these UHC plans would cover this? Also, are these treatments covered in countries that already have UHC?
	__________________ "It is degenerate in that it tends to reverse the existing order. It is essentially immoral in that it will undignify marriage. It is ruinous to the progress of civilization in that it conduces to undermine religion." - Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915.

13th October 2009, 08:21 AM	#9
ksbluesfan Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 747	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times on extremely expensive fertility treatments. Does anyone know how any of these UHC plans would cover this? Also, are these treatments covered in countries that already have UHC? I don't know about UHC coverage, but I know most insurance companies do not cover fertility treatments. As expensive as IVF is, the real cost comes from the care of pre-mature babies. Once the baby is in the womb, insurance coverage starts again. I assume this is due to the fact that it would be difficult to provide coverage for somebody who had triplets naturally but not for somebody who transferred 3 embryoes. Fertility treatments are starting to offer incentives to transfer one embryo at a time, but it's not wide-spread because they want their success rates to be high.

13th October 2009, 08:41 AM	#10
Doubt Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 3,891	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true. What is happening is that people are falling for the old FUD bit: Fear Uncertainty Dread Those who think they stand to gain from the status quo have spread FUD in an attempt to sabotage the reform. The use of such tactics in politics is not unique to the US. The powerful companies that don't want the government taking over health care have much to lose. Microsoft has used the same tactic to fight against all alternatives to Windows. When FUD fails, the next step is to adopt and then alter standards to maintain dominate positions. The good news is that even the insurance companies know that the status quo cannot continue given the rising costs. They will then offer up their own reform ideas that makes sure they get to stay in the game.
Doubt Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 3,891	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Tolyatti, Russia again. Oct. 21 to Nov. something-or-other. Monterrey, Mexico? Russia again? Maybe? Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

13th October 2009, 08:48 AM	#11
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true. Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population. That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this.
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

13th October 2009, 08:51 AM	#12
Gord_in_Toronto Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,168	Originally Posted by Beerina Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population. That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this. Let me know when your house burns down.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick Now completely free.

13th October 2009, 09:39 AM	#13
Snide Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: A 6x6 cube Posts: 2,707	Originally Posted by Beerina Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population. That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this. I didn't realize the plan was to take over everything. Anyway, I merely want to add that stating it's only for the 14% (or whatever number it is) is disingenuous. The under-insured also suffer under the current system. There are people being ruined because the coverage they had wasn't enough. What number that is, I do not know...

13th October 2009, 09:39 AM	#14
boooeee Dart Fener Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Lando System Posts: 1,867	As Wildcat said, this is common sense. You don't have to like or even believe insurance companies and the consulting firms they hire. If you remove pre-existing conditions, but don't require people to get insurance (or make the penalties too weak), premiums will rise. This is not UHC. In fact, it's practically the opposite. It will incent more healthy members to opt out of coverage and then just pay the nominal penalty when they get sick. And the people that will suffer the most are the ones that have acted the most responsibly so far: the people currently covered in the individual market. They bought insurance before they got sick like they were supposed to. And now they are going to be forced to shoulder the burden of the higher cost risk pool.
	__________________ "I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress." - Daniel Boorstin "When the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon all your problems look like squirrels." - NoZed Avenger

13th October 2009, 09:49 AM	#15
Snide Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: A 6x6 cube Posts: 2,707	Originally Posted by boooeee As Wildcat said, this is common sense. You don't have to like or even believe insurance companies and the consulting firms they hire. If you remove pre-existing conditions, but don't require people to get insurance (or make the penalties too weak), premiums will rise. This is not UHC. In fact, it's practically the opposite. It will incent more healthy members to opt out of coverage and then just pay the nominal penalty when they get sick. And the people that will suffer the most are the ones that have acted the most responsibly so far: the people currently covered in the individual market. They bought insurance before they got sick like they were supposed to. And now they are going to be forced to shoulder the burden of the higher cost risk pool. Agreed. The key then, perhaps, is in making sure the penalties are not too weak.

13th October 2009, 09:56 AM	#16
ksbluesfan Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 747	The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else.

13th October 2009, 09:57 AM	#17
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,975	Originally Posted by Snide Agreed. The key then, perhaps, is in making sure the penalties are not too weak. Unfortunately, the trend is making the penalties weaker. What started off as too weak got even more weak as the legislation moved forward. It defies logic.
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

13th October 2009, 10:00 AM	#18
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,975	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else. Agreed, but as currently written the incentive is actually to put off buying insurance until you actually get sick. This actually shrinks the risk pool, while simultaneously making it less healthy. This is monumentally stupid even by US Congressional standards.
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

13th October 2009, 10:00 AM	#19
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,768	Originally Posted by Beerina Because the problem is something on the order of 14% of the population without coverage, and a good chunk of them are only transitory. One doesn't, in a free society, take over everything just to "help" a fraction of the population. That is nothing more than a power grab. It's that simple. I'm sorry your nation succumbed to this. I have said that about the FBI for ages. The Pinkertons used to be all we needed, and made a profit too. Damn socialists and their federal law enforcement.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 10:08 AM	#20
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,975	This does give me a business idea though. A company that will arrange a health insurance purchase for you even if you are incapacitated. Get in a car wreck, for example, and you wil be enrolled in a health insurance plan before you arrive at the hospital, which the law mandates will cover your pre-existing condition! I'll call it "Just In Time" or something. THE most cost-effective insurance plan possible!
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

13th October 2009, 10:49 AM	#21
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,802	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else. Should lower premiums for everyone else ... Do you trust the insurance industry not to dip into our pockets until forced to do so? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

13th October 2009, 11:33 AM	#22
ksbluesfan Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 747	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Should lower premiums for everyone else ... Do you trust the insurance industry not to dip into our pockets until forced to do so? DR No, that's why I would prefer a single payer system. I don't trust the government much more than I trust corporations, but they seem to do a good enough job with Medicare.

13th October 2009, 07:06 PM	#23
eeyore1954 Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 733	Originally Posted by Peephole Wow, that deal Obama made with them sure paid off. Maybe they are double agents.
eeyore1954 Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 733

13th October 2009, 08:18 PM	#24
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Based upon the results of today's vote in the Senate Finance Committee, I'd say the last minute FUD strategy was a DUD.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

14th October 2009, 07:55 AM	#25
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,065	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan No, that's why I would prefer a single payer system. I don't trust the government much more than I trust corporations, but they seem to do a good enough job with Medicare. depends on who you talk to.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

14th October 2009, 09:24 AM	#26
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 4,852	Originally Posted by ksbluesfan No, that's why I would prefer a single payer system. I don't trust the government much more than I trust corporations, but they seem to do a good enough job with Medicare. Many Americans who need to go into a nursing home hid away their money so Medicare doesn't take it all. The average nursing home costs $10,000 a month. Medicare makes you spend almost every cent you have (especially if you're single), then after you're bankrupt it will start paying.
	__________________ "It is degenerate in that it tends to reverse the existing order. It is essentially immoral in that it will undignify marriage. It is ruinous to the progress of civilization in that it conduces to undermine religion." - Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915.

14th October 2009, 09:44 AM	#27
Biscuit Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 745	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I dont get why Americans are so afraid of getting UHC, can anybody explain this to me? Its so strange, some people seem to think that UHC = huge welfare state with extreme taxes, which isn't even true. Because it would allow welfare queens in their cadillacs to get free boob jobs.
Biscuit Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 745	__________________ "The only people more wrong, proudly call themselves skeptics. Skeptics exist to screw with your mind and display socially disfunctional behavior." - historian "I dont have it but you can look if you would like I dont have to defend myself to you your googler is not broke." - creekfreak

14th October 2009, 09:51 AM	#28
Peephole Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,328	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times on extremely expensive fertility treatments. Does anyone know how any of these UHC plans would cover this? Also, are these treatments covered in countries that already have UHC? In Belgium, up to six treatments up to the age 42 are covered, and costs should be limited to about €500.
	__________________ 911science The Field

14th October 2009, 09:59 AM	#29
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Snide There are people being ruined because the coverage they had wasn't enough. Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance. The consequences of reckless self-indulgence are not my worry.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th October 2009, 10:45 AM	#30
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 19,386	Originally Posted by Marc39 Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance. Wow, what a great country America is, where people have to pour every spare cent above basic living essentials into the maw of the health insurance companies. I sure wish I lived there - not! Rolfe.
	__________________ "The thing about medicine is, that it all comes down to the numbers." - Dr. Stephen Franklin, Interludes and Examinations. "To give Rolfe his due, I think this is a good example to everyone of what can happen if we fail to get a proper diagnosis and begin treating on symptoms alone--a big mistake, as shown here." - "Snoopy" on H'pathy Forums, apparently abjuring the very fundamentals of homoeopathy after she'd just allowed a young mother with Addison's disease to die.

14th October 2009, 10:55 AM	#31
Magyar Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the edge of reason Posts: 871	Quote: Agreed. The key then, perhaps, is in making sure the penalties are not too weak. OK, but then aren't you back to the same reason why people don't have insurance in the first place!? It's too expensive Quote: The risk pool is expected to be much larger, which should lower premiums overall. If young people who currently don't buy health insurance are forced to buy it, it will lower premiums for everybody else. Says WHO? What I mean is, is there a provision in the bill to cut, limit cost or yearly increases? If not, surely you are NOT suggesting that the insurance companies will lower their premiums out of the kindness of their hearts NOW that there is a legal penalty for not buying their products! I mean even in this economy where everything has dropped out of the bottom, health insurance was the only cost that went UP double digits. Edit - In ma there is the masshealth connector that is supposed to get you insurance based on "discounted" costs The insurance agencies and MA makes a bis stink about what insurance should cost etc. But if you ACTUALLY called the insurance companies on the list to get those policies the cost magically quadruples. Until there is UHC I think this is nothing but a shell game for insurance companies to further increase their profits and nothing else.
	__________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the universe." Albert Einstein "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce Last edited by Magyar; 14th October 2009 at 11:00 AM.

14th October 2009, 10:58 AM	#32
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,493	Originally Posted by Marc39 Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance. The consequences of reckless self-indulgence are not my worry. Israel has universal health care. But I guess what's good for the Jews isn't nececessarily good for the Goys.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

14th October 2009, 10:59 AM	#33
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Rolfe Wow, what a great country America is, where people have to pour every spare cent above basic living essentials into the maw of the health insurance companies. I sure wish I lived there - not! Rolfe. It's not my responsibility to instruct people on how to budget properly. If they cannot do so, that's not my concern. Cut back or get a better job.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Last edited by Marc39; 14th October 2009 at 11:01 AM.

14th October 2009, 11:02 AM	#34
Snide Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: A 6x6 cube Posts: 2,707	Originally Posted by Marc39 Boo hoo hoo. Instead of taking that vacation or buying that new car or getting that flat screen TV, they should have put the money toward better insurance. The consequences of reckless self-indulgence are not my worry. Sure. That's why all of them are under-insured. Because they're out spending frivolously. You realize with posts like this, you are advancing the cause of public option advocates, correct?

14th October 2009, 11:03 AM	#35
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Snide Sure. That's why all of them are under-insured. Because they're out spending frivolously. Many are. Over-consumption in America is no great revelation.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720