I've not seen one Serious Discussion on How HR 3692 is a "Giveaway" to the Insurance Industry

[berni_mccoy]

I see people saying this all the time. Maybe it's because Dennis Kucinich says it is. But I'm not buying it. Yes, the Insurance companies will get to insure approximately 30 more million people (another 6 million will be enlisted in the Public Insurance Plan and about another 1-2 million will be added to Medicaid). But here's what those 30 million more customers come with:

1. Insurance can no longer deny pre-existing conditions. Insurance will have to pay for services for people who are actually sick.
2. Insurance can no longer put a limit to what they pay for, even for people like me, who need more than $500 / month in medicine.
3. Insurance can no longer set rates together or cooperate regarding markets in a way that violates anti-trust laws. Insurance Companies are now subject to the same anti-trust regulation every other industry is.
4. Each rate increase an insurer brings will be subject to review by Health and Human Services.
5. Each plan that covers one of the 30 million new customers has to provide a minimum of services as dictated by the Public Insurance Plan
6. Each plan that covers one of the 30 million new customers must compete with the Public Insurance Plan

So exactly how is this a "Giveaway" to the Insurance Industry? It seems like people like to say this without backing up their argument. Maybe that's because they have no argument.

[Heidi]

1. This is a serious answer: When you're gettin' an unwanted screwin',

it doesn't really matter whether it's a hard screwin' or not. Most people will not have serious illnesses requiring the insurance companies to seriously pony up the bucks, so they still make plenty of money. This plan delivers new customers, many perfectly healthy today and for many years to come, to the insurance companies, and I suspect that's the giveaway to which many people refer.

And before you jump down my throat for my serious answer, I live in a country where health insurance is mandatory. Plenty of people don't like the mandate until they need the coverage.

[berni_mccoy]

7. Saying you are getting screwed is not a serious answer. And you've stated a falsehood

"This plan delivers new customers, many perfectly healthy today and for many years to come"

The vast majority of these people are uninsured because they can't be insured either by cost or condition. Those with pre-existing conditions are not healthy and are the ones putting the heaviest load on the current system when they go to the ER for much more expensive treatment that cannot be denied and is pushed on the local taxpayer.

[hfojvt]

20. I am not sure that is true

many people are probably uninsured for the same reason I was - because they cannot get or find a job that provides benefits. A full time worker where I work gets their insurance for about $30 a month (my employer pays the other $600-$1100 each month).

[Heidi]

22. No, the vast majority of people are uninsured because they can't afford the premiums,

healthy or not, pre-existing condition or not.

ERs are often referred to in the medical community as the poor people's clinic. When you're at death's door or worried that you're at death's door, who's paying shouldn't be your primary consideration.

But I'm sure the "I've got mine, so screw you" contingent will appreciate your "pushed on the local taxpayer" argument.

[berni_mccoy]

32. Prove it.

[G_j]

55. prove what?

that many uninsured people can't afford the premiums?

[Heidi]

62. Could you be a little less specific?

I'm extraordinarily healthy for now, thanks to good genetics (don't know where they came from, as I'm adopted) and some informed choices. Do I mind paying my premiums every month to help cover people who have pre-existing conditions? Absolutely not. But this does not preclude the fact that the insurance companies are getting rich, whether they're screwing you or me hard or not-so-hard.

Prove what, exactly?

[Hannah Bell]

95. um - half the workforce makes under $15/hour?

[berni_mccoy]

98. Ok, since you guys can't pull a fact out of your ass... 15 million can't get insurance

because of a pre-existing condition.

Google is your friend.

Those that can't afford it are part of the other 36 million who'll get coverage when the bill comes out. Hardly a "vast" majority.

[Hannah Bell]

106. More Middle-Income Americans Going Without Health Insurance

The percentage of working-age Americans with moderate to middle incomes who lacked health insurance for at least part of the year rose to 41 percent in 2005, a dramatic increase from the 28 percent in 2001 without coverage, a study released on Wednesday found.
Moreover, more than half of the uninsured adults said they were having problems paying their medical bills or had incurred debt to cover their expenses, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based private healthcare policy foundation.

The study of 4,350 adults also found that people without insurance were more likely to forgo recommended health screenings such as mammograms than those with coverage, and were less likely to have a regular doctor than their insured counterparts.

Bleak Picture for Uninsured

The report paints a bleak healthcare picture for the uninsured. "It represents an explosion of the insurance crisis into those with moderate incomes," said Sara Collins, a senior program officer at the Commonwealth Fund.

Collins said the study also illustrates how more employers are dropping coverage or are offering plans that are just too expensive for many people.

About 45.8 million Americans did not have health insurance in 2004, according to the US Census Bureau.

The percentage of individuals earning less than $20,000 a year without insurance rose to 53 percent, up from 49 percent in 2001. Overall, the percentage of people without insurance rose to 28 percent in 2005 from 24 percent in 2001.

The study also found that 59 percent of uninsured with chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes either skipped a dose of their medicine or went without it because it was too expensive.
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0002226/39/

[berni_mccoy]

109. As someone who has two children with a chronic disease, I can tell you their care

costs far more than the premium of 3 families and many individuals.

Forcing the insurance companies to cover people like us will eat far into their profit margins. Why don't you think they cover people like us anyway?

[Richardo]

12. But the "healthy" pool is the whole concept behind insurance.

Those that pay their premiums for coverage but don't have to file claims, enable the payouts to those who DO have to file claims.



Now, back to your backward socialist existence! :hi:

[Heidi]

25. CMW and I may be the exceptions (I don't think we're exceptional), but we're both quite healthy,

and except for CMW's high-blood pressure meds and his tests that led to them several years ago, we've not filed a single claim to our insurance company in a decade. And we don't mind that our premiums help those who must and do require medical care.

Signed,

Heidi, backward socialist and (hopefully) good citizen of the world

[Richardo]

38. But you ARE exceptional, as well as being healthy to boot.

:hug:

I'm much the same way - at my advanced age ;) I've had the extreme good fortune to have had no major health problems and so have "used" very little of my insurance. And, my enlightened (European) company has done a great job at keeping premiums reasonable. So I'm happy my premiums are helping those who need them as well.

[PHIMG]

132. Ewe socialist. Scary.

This kinda of name calling is more effective on Free Republic comrade.

[Richardo]

133. A friend and I are bantering, as you might be able to tell from her reply

....or not. Either way, butt out.

[PHIMG]

134. Butt out of a public discussion? Excuse me?

Mind your manners.

[Richardo]

136. "Mind your manners"

A mighty ironic statement from someone who drew a parallel between my perfectly benign remarks and those at Free Republic.

[hfojvt]

16. somewhat like my story

I was uninsured from the time I was dropped off my parent's coverage at age 21 until I was 42. My medical bills, other than dental, for that period were about $300 (one urgent care visit for $65, a doctor's visit for $120, and one pair of glasses for about $80). Insurance, on the other hand, would have cost me about $150,000 over those 21 years. That's a lot of potential profit for some insurance company.

But to some degree, with this bill, the insurance company is not keeping all the profit it makes from me. It is using some of that to pay for people like Berni who have pre-existing conditions. Also, if I'd had health insurance I probably would have gotten more medical care. Like now I basically get a free pair of glasses every two years because the insurance company allows it (and also because my glasses get pretty scratched up after two years, apparently "somebody" doesn't take very good care of them (insert whistling smiley))

[harun]

2. It gives them more revenue but I agree with you. It is a good bill.

[berni_mccoy]

3. More revenue, less profit, care for millions of Americans who can't get it now.

Seems good to me.

[robinlynne]

19. Where do you get the less profit from? Profits will increase dramatically.

[berni_mccoy]

28. For the reasons stated in the OP

[robinlynne]

42. nothing there lowers prices. Prices will rise. There was an attempt to tie prices

to medicare which made a lot of sense. medicare rates +15%, but the insurance companies had it removed. There is NOTHING to lower prices. Profits will not be lowered. the only attempt to decrease profits was the 15-85 ratio. But that only means, like halliburton, the more you bill or the higher your profit. That is how we got the embroidered towels in Iraq for the soldiers.

[berni_mccoy]

47. Back up your claim with facts

[robinlynne]

64. read the bill. How will this bill lower prices? not at all. Jsut look at the bill.

There is NO lowering of prices anywherre in the bill. no price caps. no price determination. nothing to lower prices at all. You said your Op contianed the info about lower rpices. nothing in your OP lowers prices. at all.

[robinlynne]

67. You are making claims that prices/profits will be lower. back that up.

They will not.

[berni_mccoy]

107. 15 million more covered who have pre-existing conditions

And several million more who have reached their cost-caps.

This is from testimony given in Congress by Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon and patients' rights advocate. Google it.

The care for these 15 million will cost far more than the premiums they'll pay and the Insurance companies will have to pay for it.

[robinlynne]

117. How does this lower prices?

[berni_mccoy]

119. That wasn't the question. The question was how does it decrease profits of Insurance companies..

[robinlynne]

122. How exactly do their profits decrease? They can charge as much as they want for health care.

They are guaranteed 300 million clients, by law.

[robinlynne]

118. Why do you think the insurance companies will pay? there is no cap on premiums.

We will pay, not the insurance companies. Why would the insurance companies pay? they will charge it all to us plus 15%. It may help individuals. but it does not lower prices in any way, nor profits. How does this lower profits and prices?
This will RAISE both prices and insurance company profits.
They have to cover pre-existing conditions AT WHATEVER PRICE THEY WANT TO CHARGE. Why do you think they will choose to lower prices instead of raise them?
Do you think the insurance companies are going to play nice all of a sudden, for no reason? Now that they have access to every american, by mandate, and federal tax dollars? Sure they'll lower their profits. Sure they will. Are you kidding?

[berni_mccoy]

121. There are premium rate controls in place in the bill. See here for yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6992059

[robinlynne]

123. As you just showed us there are NO rate controls in place. They can charge whatever they

want to charge with 300 million guaranteed clients.

[berni_mccoy]

129. The ultimate rate control is the PO. But you've missed several other rate controls

in the bill. I can only lead a horse to water...

[robinlynne]

130. ok,, great. then it needs to be open to the public. I will switch immediately.

Although I pay less than that right now.

[hfojvt]

4. because it's not single payer

duh.

Well one thing that I really wanted was "an open public option". As in, I could dump my $600 a month insurance and go with a public option for $350 a month (and still have my employer pay half).

[sandnsea]

11. Let's look at that

First, I just don't get why you think the public option will be so cheap. But putting that aside, how do you expect your employer to continue paying such a large amount of your premium if they have to hire more staff to administer all the different plans people might choose plus the increase in premiums in the main plan they currently offer. You're not going to save that much with a public option and you won't get as much help from your employer - so how do you consider that a good thing?

And you do know that as the program gets into place, your employer will get to go to the exchange to choose a company plan. Unless you work for a huge corporation that already gets good rates, this will help reduce premiums in the future too. If the public option does end up being that cheap, you can bet most employers will demand they be allowed to join. We won't get there without this first step though.

[hfojvt]

41. I did some research,

inadvertently. Where I work, insurance costs $629.17 a month. For County employees, insurance costs $472 a month and for water department employees is costs a mere $344.54 a month. Clearly, I would be much better off working for the water department and paying half of my insurance costs.

I don't think it takes a huge amount of work to send payments to two different places (public option or current plan), although it would presumably hurt their risk pool to lose somebody like me who right now pays more than he gets in benefits.

[sandnsea]

53. You just described private competition working

as well as how eliminating pre-existing conditions will reduce premiums because they won't be funneling sick people in and out of policies anymore. There are reasons for those different prices beyond what a public option would provide.

Back to your employer. What makes you think everybody would choose either your employer's plan or the public option? Maybe they'd choose one of the plans in the exchange. Maybe ten different employees would choose ten different plans. So 3/4 of the employees opt for something besides the employer based plan, then the employer based plan goes up. They have to reduce how much of everybody's premiums they pay. 3/4 of the employees all choose some different plan, they have to hire more people to administer all of that. It's not feasible at this point in time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. AND...

7. Insurers will be required to pay out 85% of premiums on claims

[Richardo]

6. K&R

In return for these presumably healthier customers, the insurance companies are required to vastly increase their cost exposure in the form of no lifetime payout caps and no disqualification for PECs, and smaller margins through competition created by the lack of antitrust immunity.

Disclaimer: This is NOT to imply that I approve of all provisions of the House bill in its current form.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. It is fascist by its very nature

US citizens will be forced to pay a private corporation under penalty of imprisonment.

There is no justification for this.

[berni_mccoy]

10. You are required to pay taxes which end up going directly to private corporations.

How is this different?

[derby378]

14. Are you talking about corporate bailouts or forced purchase of corporate products?

We didn't support health insurance reform just so that we could become indentured to Big Insurance. That wasn't part of the deal.

[Richardo]

13. Does your state require auto insurance? Does your mortgage company require homeowners insurance?

We're not exactly in uncharted waters here.

In the case of homeowners, it's even worse than your scenario: it's a PRIVATE entity requiring you to pay money to ANOTHER private entity. The state isn't even involved.

[derby378]

18. Driving is officially considered a "privilege"

And you're still free to seek out a mortgage company that doesn't require homeowners insurance, either, if you want to tough it out on your own in terms of house repairs.

But an individual mandate without access to a real public option is, in fact, slouching towards corporatism. You are in thrall to Big Insurance from cradle to grave.

[Richardo]

23. The poster I was responding to made it sound like this was some new outrage

And driving may technically be a privilege but it's a de facto requirement for many many people.

As for homeowners, the mortgage company is not as concerned with house repairs as it is with house replacement, and the inability of most people to pay for that on their own (else why have the mortgage in the first place?)

[Statistical]

35. Which has nothing to do with the OP said.

How is it a "giveaway" (like many claim on DU).

It is possible for the bill to be both "fascist" and a burden on insurance companies.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

[sandnsea]

9. It also changes Medicare

And adds the prescription negotiation we've been seeking along with a process for closing the doughnut hole.

[mopinko]

15. it is my understanding that more employers will be required to insure

their employers. i am not sure about this, and maybe someone who knows can expand on that. but not letting the walmarts of the world suck off taxpayer dollars to pay for their sick employees who show up in ers, and who are on medicaide, is an UNABASHED good thing.

[AllentownJake]

33. They have to provide a plan

doesn't mean that they have to pay that much for it or that they can't make their employees pay for it...honestly the Wal-Mart employees would be better off in the private market under this plan.

[Statistical]

39. Not true.

For employer to avoid the punative penalty the plan offered must both:
a) meet minimum requirements in terms of levels of coverage, copays, deductibles, etc.
AND
b) exceed no more than a set % of income of workers.

The idea that Walmart can avoid the penalty by offering a plan with a $100,000 deductible that costs employer $9000 per month is a DU fantasy.

I am no fan of the house bill but DU has gone off the deep end in claims made about it.

[AllentownJake]

What is the penalty

I read it is $750 per worker. If the penalty is cheaper than the cost of insuring someone sounds like some entreupenorial executive is going to provide a case study for paying the fine.

[Statistical]

81. Well Walmart already offers insurance to all employees

so the question is the penalty + existing insurance cheaper than compliant insurance.

Also the penalty is on wages of entire company (lowest paid employee to highest executive) if non-compliant.

Penalty I believe is 6% of wages. Not sure what Walmart total labor costs are (all labor from lowest part time employee to executives).
If you can find an estimate of walmart labor costs then you could estimate what the penalty is.
So is penalty + existing insurance costs + PR cost for non-compliant healthcare > cost to provide real insurance to everyone.

Not sure. That would be something to find out.
I would think a system like this could only help Walmart. Same reason Walmart supports raising minimum wage. It hurts their competitors more than it hurts them and that is a net positive.

[robinlynne]

17. There are no price caps. And the public option will be based on "market prices".

Insurance rates will continue to rise and we are all now guilty of a crime if we don't buy it. How much do you think rates will rise now that everyone has to buy in and noone can be denied coverage. double? no price caps!!! Prices could have been tied to medicare. they are not. they are free to rise and rise. The insurance companies continue to dominate the game. Single payer would simply eliminate them and their profits.

[Richardo]

21. But there are no price caps today, and none of the restrictions in the House bill are in place today

So the 'giveaway' to the insurance companies is the current system.

[robinlynne]

26. yes, but now they will get even more. they get taxpayer money and more people.

Why have the insurance companies involved at all? They have nothing to add to healthcare. They don't exist in Europe/Canada. there are the people, and the healthcare.

[berni_mccoy]

29. More people with a much higher health care cost

[AllentownJake]

34. Actually no

A good portion of those will be kids in their 20s who are taking a gamble. Their health care costs are actually quite low.

[robinlynne]

36. what does that mean?

[Richardo]

30. Well, the discussion is how THIS bill is a giveaway (or not) to insurance.

Single payor is another discussion.

And again, these new customers are not 100% margin: their premiums will go to paying for a wider scope of treatment for the chronically, long-term ill or those with PECs.

[ProSense]

43. There most certainly is a cap.

“For all Americans, this legislation makes a big difference: no discrimination for pre-existing medical conditions, no dropped coverage if you are sick, no co-pays for preventive care. There is a cap on what you pay in but there is no cap on the benefits that you receive. It works for seniors closing the donut hole, offering better primary care, and strengthening Medicare for years to come. It works for women preventing insurance companies from charging women more than men for the same coverage. No longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition.

link

[TheWraith]

24. Kicked and recommended to combat the aggressive stupidity around here. nt

[Spazito]

27. Well said!

I, too, have seen very little substantive argument on why the House Bill is so bad with the exception of the Stupak amendment which the vast majority agree it is atrocious and must be removed once it goes to conference.

The bill, while far from perfect, has many real positives such as those you point out in your OP and will improve the lives of many Americans when it comes to their health care, imo.

Recommended.

[AllentownJake]

31. I don't know I'm pretty sure most companies

would love to have 30 million mandated new customers that have no choice but to buy their product under federal law, are there some restrictions, sure but I guarentee you that the insurance companies are going to make a shit load off o that.

Of course this is a pittance compared to the money Pharma is going to make because our congress critters refuse to pool their purchasing dollars and demand price concessions.

[Richardo]

45. THAT is the big issue for me - pharma

One of the very precepts of economics is that the unit price of something decreases as the quantity sold increases. It's the basis of my job in Purchasing - increase your buying power - and therefore pricing leverage - over the supplier.

Why the government would not negotiate on the behalf of 300+ million citizen-customers is unconscionable, and to my mind criminally negligent at the very least.

[AllentownJake]

48. Obama made a deal

for them to sit on the sidelines on this debate. Pretty simple.

[Richardo]

52. Oh, I know that - and I find it an abandonment of the government's fiduciary responsibility.

And I very much want pharma off the sidelines and in the game by the end of this term.

[AllentownJake]

59. This bill passes it is the status quo for 20 years

in fact if you look at the past 30 years of American History, the consumer protections are likely to be weakened. Simple reason, the companies that don't like those restrictions can afford the lobbyist to try to have them removed.

[Richardo]

66. I disagree with that - I think Obama de-linked drug prices from insurance reform

And he can revisit pharma if he so desires. Just my opinion, I have no knowledge one way or the other.

[AllentownJake]

113. Nah, Obama will be onto something else

and after this battle he won't touch this again in his Presidency.

[dugaresa]

37. the biggest problem is that there is still a profit motive

and of all the types of insurance it makes the least sense in the health care industry. Our system is also far too complicated and layering legislation over it makes it worse.

If you are a diabetic and I can't refuse to insure you, I can sure as hell make your premium sky high to make sure you don't pick my company.

Also from company to company the prices vary depending upon how much of the risk you the patient are willing to assume. If you want less risk, you pay higher premiums and perhaps assume no percentage of costs. For those trying to keep premiums low they assume a higher percentage of the cost when incurred.

In reality it makes no sense to me why insurance companies even exist. They actually add to the cost of care and they provide nothing but a conduit for money to flow to services and they take a cut. Would be better to pay into a non-profit community pool and have the money go direct to the provider.

The profit motive makes them far more dangerous because they want more profit not less so how the hell does that eventually reduce costs?

[berni_mccoy]

44. Even the French system has profit in it

Supplementary for-profit insurance
for profit providers
for profit drug companies

[AllentownJake]

46. You honestly are going to try to make a comparison

between this and the French system...really?

[berni_mccoy]

50. No. I'm refuting a strawman argument about profit

[dugaresa]

65. I don't mind the for profit providers or drug companies, however I do mind the insurance part

because they provide no real value.

Why do they deserve huge profits? How do they help anyone? They only provide value if the services you receive far exceed what you pay in premiums. Plus I can pay into it for years and the day I lose a job, I am stuck again and perhaps have to pay even more. It isn't like you gain some sort of value. You literally begin anew every year.

I would much rather be covered under a national plan like medicare and pay a tax based on my income and be assured that job or no job I get coverage.

I have insurance and I pay a great deal for it and it really sucks eggs. It is employer provided but I pay nearly $600 per month out of my own pocket and I have steep deductibles and even after I pay them I still have to pay %20 of care until I hit some even larger amount out of pocket.

To be honest due to the rising cost of health care, I spend less in the economy overall because the preimiums and other costs are just too variable and I can't plan ahead because I don't know that someone won't get sick and that money for a vacation over a weekend won't have been better saved for yet another set of medical bills.

Our economy overall suffers because of this and it is getting worse.

[treestar]

40. K&R this is one of the stupidest arguments going

And as if the insurance companies wouldn't have to hire more people to carry it out and provide the service on top of that.

[bigtree]

49. without competition #3 will do little good to keep rates down

#4 is questionable as to what HHS will actually be doing to affect rates. Negotiate, like it says in the bill? :rofl:

#6 is just a joke. The 'public plan has yet to be established in a way which would seriously challenge the industry. Maybe it will take on a serious form in the final legislation, but the one passed by the House is a weak sister.

It would help if you didn't include the Kucinich sneer with these posts. You really don't know any significant thing about most of the folks you're talking to, despite your petty 'kuchinian crusade'. (Is there anyone outside of here who is moaning about the man and his vote like the handful of posters here?) Including DU politics with a query like this just invites flames.

[berni_mccoy]

51. Factless as usual

[bigtree]

57. oh, bull. You just listed provisions of the bill like they were gospel and unassailable

YOU provide some facts FIRST to back up your claims. What a joke with your one-liners.

[berni_mccoy]

83. Those are facts about the bill that directly refute the "Giveaway" argument

Try using facts once in a while and you'll be taken more seriously.

[ProSense]

54. Claiming the insurance industry loves this bill is beyond dumb.

• They spent more than $400 million trying to kill the bill.
  
  
• They will lose their anti-trust exemption.
  
  
• Beginning in 2010, it will be illegal for them to drop customers based on a pre-existing condition, that includes those among the new customers they will gain.
  
  
• They will have to direct a larger percentage of every dollar on care.

If getting more customers was the only thing that mattered, they would have taken up reform before the Democrats took over. They would have passed a bullshit bill when they had the chance. Afterall, people seem to think the Democrats would have accepted anything as reform.

The insurance industry is about to get screwed.

[AllentownJake]

56. No they spent $400 million trying to control the debate

They weren't against a bill per se...they were against a Public Option.

[berni_mccoy]

58. They spent that much trying to kill this bill

[AllentownJake]

61. Nope

Insurance Companies had one objective, kill the public option, they had accepted that they would have to deal with some regulation.

That $400 million wasn't to kill health care reform, it was to control the debate.

BTW they largely won.

[bigtree]

69. bingo. their target: public option

. . . mission accomplished - not a peep from the insurance or drug industry. Bill's been sitting passed for days now . . .

[ProSense]

70. Is that why they tried to kill the Baucus bill?

Insurance companies don't want reform. They may want more customers, but they don't want any of the other measures that come with reform.

They're screwed.

[berni_mccoy]

75. How much did Kucinich get?

[bigtree]

76. you're a joke

. . . a one-liner. You don't give a damn more about this bill than you do your Kucinich crusade. These hit threads of yours don't deserve the time it takes to open them.

[berni_mccoy]

78. That's all his response deserved.

[AllentownJake]

89. Dennis is my avatar

to piss you people off...back in April it was Paul Krugman

:rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

111. Dennis as your avatar doesn't piss me off. It shows you side with someone who is against reform.

[AllentownJake]

112. No it shows I side with someone

who doesn't buy the standard DLC corporate bullshit you are eating.

[berni_mccoy]

114. No, you buy into shit that will never happen because people like Kucinich undermine

those who would help him. He loses credibility each time he opens his mouth.

And is a pro-life stance until you run for President a DLC thing to do or a Dennis Kucinich thing?

Oh, and I would never choose an avatar to antagonize people. That's a troll-thing to do.

[ProSense]

63. BS, they were actively lobbying members of Congress to vote against the bill. n/t

[bigtree]

60. They've got all of the resources in the country to challenge it

. . . but you haven't heard a peep of opposition from them . . . not one ad, not one statement.

[ProSense]

72. AHIP killed Clinton's health bill, which was managed care, they don't want reform.

They killed reform long before a public option was even being discussed.

[bigtree]

73. not a peep from them since passage

weird, huh?

[berni_mccoy]

85. That's because of the backlash. When they attacked the Senate bill, the House added the Anti-trust

elements to their bill. That's what shut them up.

[ProSense]

86. What do you want them to say? They lost.

AHIP Statement on House Passage of H.R. 3962

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), released the following statement today on House passage of H.R. 3962.

"Health plans strongly support comprehensive health care reform, and we have contributed to this discussion by proposing a complete overhaul of how health insurance is provided. Earlier this year, we proposed guaranteed coverage, elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, no longer basing premiums on a person's health status or gender, and an effective personal coverage requirement to get everyone covered. We also have proposed far-reaching administrative simplification reforms that will improve efficiency, reduce costs, and free up time for physicians to focus on patient care.

"The current House legislation fails to bend the health care cost curve and breaks the promise that those who like their current coverage can keep it. A new government-run plan will cause millions to lose their existing coverage and draconian Medicare Advantage cuts will force millions of seniors out of the program entirely.

"This bill imposes inflexible mandates before getting everyone covered and new regulations that duplicate what is already in place at the state level. Many of these reforms begin in 2010 after employees have already chosen their plans and contracts have been negotiated. The result will be increased costs and massive disruptions in the quality coverage individuals and families rely on today.

"Recent polls have shown that Americans are increasingly concerned about the impact of rising health care costs. Yet the current health care reform discussion has, until recently, ignored the cost issue. Without real and effective measures to bend the cost curve, families and employers will not be able to afford coverage and health care costs will rise at a rate much faster than the overall economy is able to sustain.

"Health plans will continue to advocate for bipartisan reforms that cover everyone, improve quality, and make health care coverage more affordable."

edited missing word in title.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. K&R....I'm not seeing it either, Berni

...but I can be persuaded with facts.

btw...I'm still reading the bill.

[berni_mccoy]

115. Thank you. You are a rare DUer indeed

And I'm feeling very alone out here.

[Johonny]

71. HR 3692 is made from people!

[Richardo]

93. OK that's hilarious

:rofl:

[Luminous Animal]

74. Here you go.

One and a Half Good Things About the House Health Care Bill and 10 Things That Make it Worse Than Nothing

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/14117

[berni_mccoy]

77. That's not a discussion on how HR 3692 is a giveaway.It's a discussion on how Single Payer is better

[Luminous Animal]

79. So you had time to read through all the links?

Hahahaha!

[berni_mccoy]

80. I've already read it before. I read FDL and slinkerwink at DKos.

[SpartanDem]

82. Actually it's about 15 million to Medicaid

So out the 36 million that the bill would insure 21 million or about 60% would get their insurance from the government either through Medicaid or the public option.

[berni_mccoy]

84. That's not what I read at the CBO. Can you provide a reference please?

I'm interested to see where those numbers come from.

Thanks.

[SpartanDem]

90. Pages 5 and 6

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

there would be roughly 15 million more enrollees in Medicaid than the total number
projected for Medicaid and CHIP combined under current law.

[berni_mccoy]

96. Something's wrong with the CBO numbers

36 million more insured
-15 million on medicaid
----
21 million...

But they say 30 million more will be in Exchange based plans.

So that means either
Medicaid is a plan in the Exchange
-or-
Medicaid enrollees are not considered "insured" by the CBO data.

[SpartanDem]

99. On page 5 it says 21 million in the exchange

out which 6 will choose the public option(second paragraph pg 6)

[berni_mccoy]

103. Page 6, second paragraph says 30 million total...

The 21 million on page 5 refers to those who will purchase individual plans (i.e. not via an employer).

[SpartanDem]

127. That is strange

on the table on page 16 it says 21 million either way it proves my point that a large percentage the newly insured will be so though the government

[ipaint]

87. Our regulatory system is completely rotted from within.

That would need to be fixed before you could claim that the new laws would protect people from widespread abuse.
A mandate should come AFTER the regulatory system is cleaned up.


The revolving door for industry lobbyists in regulatory positions at HHS is wide open for business.
http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/index.php

[berni_mccoy]

88. Nice anti-government rant, but factless just the same.

[ipaint]

92. First, I wasn't ranting but more importantly

you are the one with no facts.

[mdmc]

91. Is it universal coverage?

As long as corporations profit from denying care, I will consider this a giveaway for corporations.

1. Insurance can no longer deny pre-existing conditions. Insurance will have to pay for services for people who are actually sick.
Who can pay for private insurance? Just the wealthy, I assume. Everyone else has to keep their jobs to remain insured. Pre-exisiting conditions only matter if you don't have employer paid insurance. I didn't see ANYTHING in this bill that would require corporations to pay for treatment.
2. Insurance can no longer put a limit to what they pay for, even for people like me, who need more than $500 / month in medicine.
I doubt it. I bet corporations will still limit medications and treatment.
3. Insurance can no longer set rates together or cooperate regarding markets in a way that violates anti-trust laws. Insurance Companies are now subject to the same anti-trust regulation every other industry is.
Time will tell. I doubt this bill will change their monopoly.
4. Each rate increase an insurer brings will be subject to review by Health and Human Services.
5. Each plan that covers one of the 30 million new customers has to provide a minimum of services as dictated by the Public Insurance Plan
6. Each plan that covers one of the 30 million new customers must compete with the Public Insurance Plan

As someone who has employer paid insurance, I see this bill as a tax increase on me. I get the same shitty insurance, but also get to pay for the 30 mil that the bill covers.
I would support the bill if it allowed me to ditch my insurance for a public option (MEDICAID).
Actually I support the bill now, as it will be a victory for Obama. That is the only thing I like about the bill.

[ProudDad]

94. And how much of that pie in the sky you list

will actually be in the final bill...

Without being surrounded by hundreds of loopholes that clever insurance corporation lawyers can't get around...

Or tie up in court indefinitely...

And this POS bill that takes us from 50,000,000 uninsured to 52,000,000 uninsured (by 2020) helps us how?

But, here you go...

What does the insurance industry get out of it? Tens of millions of new customers, courtesy of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. And not just any kind of customer, but the youngest, healthiest customers — those least likely to use their insurance. The bill permits insurers to charge twice as much for older people as for younger ones. So older under-65’s will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That’s OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn’t age be considered a pre-existing condition?)

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/is_the_house_health_.php

--------------------------------------

When one lives in a sick, stingy, hypocritical empire this is what one gets.

This lousy, sick, bankrupt USAmerikan Empire can't even get a simple concept like "We need to help each other in our times of need." or "Yes, I am my brother's keeper."

And not just about "Health Care"

This bullsh*t legislation is being "crafted" by people in the pocket of corporations and simmering in a sea of corporate-think.

This bullsh*t "nation" can spend trillions on the war machine in order to rape and rob from the billions to allow a tiny minority to live in utter luxury and a slight majority to be marginally fed and entertained by the bread and circuses of the Empire - mcdonalds and cable TV, but can’t find its way to spend anything substantial for the General Welfare.

Meanwhile, the mindless glorification of that USAmerikan Imperial war machine and its dirty deeds fill the airwaves of the empire’s propaganda machine on ARMISTICE DAY; the day on which the rest of the world (the semi-civilized part) celebrates the sudden, planned outbreak of Peace 90 years ago today.

We can’t allow the promotion of bad examples like PEACE or "Universal Health Care" now, can we?

SICKENING...

[berni_mccoy]

97. Point out the loop holes... don't just say they are there.

You need to back up your argument with facts, not b.s.

Yes, millions more will be required to buy insurance. This is not a bad thing. And it doesn't mean a giveaway to insurance either. They will have to spend far more than they get to see that everyone gets covered regardless of medical condition.

Sorry if you only see Single Payer as the *only* solution.

[ProudDad]

100. You don't understand the capitalist system, do you?

The insurance corporations get more "customers" - FORCED into the system...

The insurance corporations are in the business TO MAKE A PROFIT!

The insurance corporations WILL make a profit...

Therefore, if it costs more to cover those few with pre-existing conditions who are lumped in with the other millions, they WILL CHARGE MORE, in fact, they will charge enough to maintain their huge profits...

Many millions of USAmericans will not be able to afford these new rates...

They will pay the fine instead...

Capitalism 101...

-------------------

Great solution... <sarcasm>

More profits for the for-profit insurance industry...

"Criminalize" citizens who can't afford "health insurance" -- NOT HEALTH CARE, health "insurance"...

-------------------

The civilized world decided;

1) Everyone living in their country has a right to health care
2) There will be NO for-profit health insurance
3) We will use our leverage against the drug cartels for reasonable drug prices

NONE of these reasonable, rational, humane approaches to health care were even considered by the corporate funded Congress you defend...

And yes, I do blame the damn democrats...piece of shit corporate tools damn near every one of them...but that's to be expected in a war loving Empire like this one...

[berni_mccoy]

102. As pointed out, the Insurance companies will be rate controlled and forced to cover the sick

Sorry, but you have not provided any facts or any form of reasoned argument.

[ProudDad]

105. You provide the backup for this specious statement

"the Insurance companies will be rate controlled"...

Where is that in the bill?

What are the chances that price controls on health insurance would EVER get through this corporate funded Congress?

How naive are you???

YOU are the one providing no facts and appear to be impervious to reasoned argument...

[berni_mccoy]

110. Jesus buddy, read the damn bill

Sec. 102. Medical loss ratio min. 85%, forced rebate of excess.
Sec. 104. Exposure of price gouging by insurers
Sec. 109. No lifetime limits
Sec. 213 Insurance Rating RULES.
Sec. 217. Advance notice of planned rate increases to allow for review/denial of increase

Nearly the entire fucking bill is designed to control rates.

[ProudDad]

101. Are you REALLY that naive? (n/t)

[ipaint]

104. How can you be so naive.

We haven't successfully regulated a major industry in this country since before reagan. They are "persons" under the law for crying out loud.

I guess if you want proof that in this particular case, with this particular set of laws, the abuses will never the less continue unabated, you get to wait until folks start dropping like flies.

Given the criminal history of the industry, the history of the regulatory agency in charge and the current list of industry shills working in that agency, it's more than safe to assume consumer protections in the current reform are being advance as window dressing to achieve a particular end.

Once the industry is hooked up to an endless supply of mandated taxpayer wealth weaning it off in favor of future reforms will prove as impossible as re-regulating the banks is today. Too much money on wall street is being made and will be made to allow anything as silly as laws and regulations to get in the way.

I believe government agencies can regulate effectively, they do in a many governments around the world and they used to here. The didn't call it DE- regulation for nothing.
Until we remove the rot, mandating premiums and handing over subsidies is a massive giveaway for very little in return.

[berni_mccoy]

108. Government is a failure. I get it. That's the sum of your argument.

Why don't you provide some facts to back up your claim.

[Geek_Girl]

116. Many of the uninsured in this country are the younger generation and less likely to require

serious medical attention. They are mandated to purchase health insurance with federally subsidized dollars. How is that not a massive windfall for the insurance industry.

The other regulations are good. But when you add the 40 million people that are mandated to purchase a product how is that not a massive windfall for the seller of that product.

[berni_mccoy]

120. That is how any form of insurance, private or public, needs to work.

You can't just enroll the healthy. That's exactly what the private insurance does today.

And you can't just enroll the sick because there is no way they could afford the premiums to provide care for themselves.

You have to enroll everyone to make it possible to cover the sick and the healthy. The healthy are protected from a catastrophie while the sick are given the care they need. It's not a windfall because about half of the people that will be covered will have medical expenses they could not normally pay for themselves.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Your argument could be applied to SS as well. Some young people will never need SS when they retire. For others, it will be the only source of income they have. But the point is to make everyone pay when they can.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. Anyone who willfully neglects to have health insurance is an idiot.

Yeah, I remember being 26 and not understanding the need. But 26 year olds have accidents, require hospitalization, etc. All the rest.

I'm sorry, but "I don't WANT to buy health insurance" is not a reasonable argument against this bill. If we had a SPHC system, young healthy people would be paying for it, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

124. Apparently, until a few days ago, people thought we were going to pass a Single Payer Plan.

And there are a bunch of healthy 26 year olds who are outraged that they may have to get insurance.

It's not perfect; Stupak has to go; but overall, it DOES improve the game for the rest of us. I'm astounded at how pissed off some people here are. For the record, I'd like to have a Single Payer plan, too-- but that's not happening in this country, not any time soon. I'd rather have incremental reform than none at all. :shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

126. You are correct on all counts.

Thank you.

[Richardo]

128. I'm reccing your post even though that's impossible.

:patriot:

[TomCADem]

131. AHIP Opposes It. AFL-CIO Support It - Enough For Me

Unless someone wants to make an up is down argument.

[MilesColtrane]

135. There's a reason insurance companies are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against it

A lot of people here can't understand that, and are buying into 'divide and conquer' lies.