Deadlines have come and gone relative to congressional approval of a national health care plan. Various reasons have been offered as to why the Democratic-controlled Congress has been unable to get sufficient votes to deliver a plan to the president for his signature.
It is doubtful any previous president has made as many speeches, traveled so often and so far to tell his story, used so many questionable tactics to try to win support for a specific piece of legislation or spent and committed as many millions, billions or even trillions of dollars to try to get approval of a plan he wants to sign.
And yet, according to numerous public opinion polls, a large majority of Americans are opposed to the current plan being put together secretly behind closed doors.
A week or so ago, a new “deadline” was announced: next Thursday, March 18. However, since that announcement, there has been some wavering, and now senior Democrats are suggesting that maybe March 18 isn’t a firm deadline.
The idea behind the March 18 date was that Democratic leaders wanted to get approval before legislators left town for a two-week Easter recess when they would get back to their home districts and hear the growing opposition to what Obama is pushing.
White House sources announced Friday that Obama is putting off a long-planned trip to Asia to remain in Washington to continue his arm-twisting to secure sufficient votes from fellow Democrats to pass the bill. (Consider the massive changes this triggers in all the countries Obama had planned to visit.)
Various parliamentary maneuvers, some of which some say are unfair, if not unconstitutional, are being considered to try to win congressional approval by one means or another. Every day, Democratic, GOP and news analysts come up with various vote tallies, all of which forecast a narrow vote.
Considering the almost-unmatched efforts that Obama and his congressional leaders have used trying to get a favorable vote, it is telling that a majority of Americans do not favor the Obama plan. Asked if the country is headed in the right direction, 70 percent of those questioned said “no.”
Poll after poll has shown the public does not want the Obama plan. They want improvements in the nation’s current health delivery system and runaway costs, but they don’t like what the president is trying to force down the throats of Americans.
They don’t like the secrecy. Few legislators know what is in the more-than-2,000-page bill. Changes and additions continue to be made to the proposed legislation — all behind closed doors. There is no bipartisan effort as Republicans have been locked out of the deliberations.
Members of Congress are being bribed to vote for the president’s plan. They are being threatened with actions that will be taken against them if they do not support the president.
The cost of the proposed plan is huge. People start paying for the plan almost immediately but have to wait three years for the plan to kick into action. The national debt is out of control.
And the country is becoming even more divided, with greater and greater dislike and distrust of Congress.
The shame or disgrace of the entire matter is that members of Congress and the vast majority of Americans do not know what is in the proposed legislation. They do not know firm numbers or firm definitions or what will or will not be in the bill.
Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said members of Congress and the public would have to pass the bill “so we can find out what’s in it.” What an admission.
How can any House or Senate member vote on a bill he or she really doesn’t know about, and how can the public be expected to approve of a bill that affects one-sixth of this nation’s economy? What about the huge, historical debt that will be passed on to future generations?
Legislators are not telling the whole truth, and there is no transparency — something Obama, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders pledged to Americans if they were voted into office.
One of the big questions is why the national media are not asking more questions and holding Obama to his promises of openness and transparency and questioning the power tactics being used to gain votes.
If Bush and his advisers had engaged in anything like what is going on in Washington today, there would be massive critical condemnation by the nation’s media. Why is it so silent today?
Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid are asking their fellow Democrats to approve the bill even if it means they are likely to be defeated in the 2010 or 2012 elections. They are being asked to fall on their own swords.
What is happening is that Obama is indeed following through on one of his campaign pledges: to fundamentally change this country. It is a matter of ideology and philosophy.
The question facing those in Congress, as well as American citizens, is what is more important: pleasing the current president or doing what is best for the country for years to come?
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
sunny (anonymous) says…
He should be fired! After all, he does work for the American people, I think. Makes me want to throw up just thinking about it!
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Wow, every single one of the right wing talking points collected together and fired all at once. The game is getting truely desperate for the pay or die insurance industry.
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
I don't want liarcare.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
we need a public option!!
merrill (anonymous) says…
June 17 2009 - Huffington Post
Poll Shows 76% Support For Choice Of Public Plan
New poll numbers from NBC/Wall Street Journal produce two major and potentially conflicting story lines when it comes to the Obama administration's efforts for a health care overhaul. On the one hand, the American public overwhelmingly favors a choice between getting insurance coverage either through the private market or a government run option. Indeed, 76 percent of respondents said it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06...
==================================================================
Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer
A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.
The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.”
Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/another...
===============================================================
Health Insurance Premiums Soar as New Polls Show Americans Want Reform
"single payer health care for all! Everybody IN so No One is left out"
by James Parks, Mar 11, 2010
A survey from Economist/YouGov released this week shows 53 percent of respondents support changes proposed by the Obama administration. A second poll by Ipsos/McClutchey shows that 53 percent of Americans either support the current reform option or hope for an even stronger reform package. More than a third of those who oppose current reform proposals actually favor stronger reforms.
Meanwhile, a study by Health Care for America Now (HCAN) shows jaw-dropping insurance premium hikes—up 97 percent for families and 90 percent for individuals between 2000 and 2008. Premiums rose two times faster than medical costs and more than three times faster than wages. Companies like WellPoint are raising premiums by as much as 39 percent in California and by double digits in at least 11 states.
An analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that people who bought insurance on their own between 2004 and 2007 on average paid more of their health expenses themselves—52 percent—than insurance companies. Yet those who had employer-sponsored coverage only paid 30 percent out of pocket.
The industry front group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), heard plenty this week as thousands gathered in Washington, D.C.,
http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/03/11/hea...
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Put in the public option and the approval % is 57 favorable. While 57% is not staggering , in this day and age of division it is commanding majority. Unfortunately for the 19% of americans who self identify as republicans , yeah , 19 % this is going to pass despite your corporate industry efforts to kill it. There is an outside chance we may even get a public option thru in reconciliation. The vote counts are building. Put that in your pipe and smoke it !
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"March 9, 2010
In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan
Growing sentiment among opponents that bill would raise costs, not address real problems
princeton, nj -- As President Obama begins a final push on healthcare reform, slightly more Americans say they would advise their member of Congress to vote against rather than for a healthcare reform bill similar to the one the president has proposed.""
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Fav...
Centerville (anonymous) says…
I can't wait to run my request for a doctor visit throught 159 (don't believe me? Count 'em.) new commissions and boards. So much more fair than having to call a number and make an appointment.
tantrazoid (anonymous) says…
Who is this guy.? Can we get an opinion writer at theLJW that uses sources other than FOX news to inspire his column -sheesh!
HomeSlice (anonymous) says…
Rants against 'talking points'. Call them what you want, but they still need to be addressed. Come up with solid defenses against them and they go away. Until then, just complain that they are Republican talking points and pretend that somhow disqualifies their substance.
My free advice above applies to both sides of this and other political arguments, BTW. Worth every pixel!
merrill (anonymous) says…
This Obama plan may not carry. Then again the industry and repubs still favor the status quo which is charge as much as you can get away with which consistently increases the cost of just about every item that is purchased .
improved Medicare Insurance for All does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits would be based on customer service, clinic performance and the clients experience.
The nations consumers could have excellent improved Medicare Insurance for All if one would remove:
*elected officials as shareholders
*special interest campaign funding
*the insurance industry recklessly spending health care dollars to bribe votes
*the news media offering misinformation ( their large advertising revenue is at stake)
Remember it is the most expensive medical insurance in the world that denies care and/or cancels coverage after taking ones money for years and years.
Taking from Medicare won't fly. If this new plan is voted in it will not take affect until 2017 or whatever. Medicare will not take a hit as the senior population will be raising hell.
merrill (anonymous) says…
2 scenarios that will make it difficult for the Obama plan to pass:
By Marcia Angell, M.D. for Huffington Post –
Here is my program for real reform:
Well, the House health reform bill — known to Republicans as the Government Takeover — finally passed after one of Congress’s longer, less enlightening debates. Two stalwarts of the single-payer movement split their votes; John Conyers voted for it; Dennis Kucinich against. Kucinich was right.
Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the House bill is not a “government takeover.” I wish it were. Instead, it enshrines and subsidizes the “takeover” by the investor-owned insurance industry that occurred after the failure of the Clinton reform effort in 1994. To be sure, the bill has a few good provisions (expansion of Medicaid, for example), but they are marginal.
The House bill would take money out of Medicare, and divert it to the private sector and, to some extent, to Medicaid. The remaining costs of the legislation would be paid for by taxes on the wealthy. But although the bill might pay for itself, it does nothing to solve the problem of runaway inflation in the system as a whole. It’s a shell game in which money is moved from one part of our fragmented system to another.
Con’t:
http://www.healthcare-now.org/is-the-...
===============================================================
Healthcare-NOW! Members Oppose Current Version of Congressional Health Bill
Over 125 Healthcare-NOW! members at our 2009 strategy conference voted to oppose the current Congressional version of health insurance reform legislation. While we recognize that many of our allies and supporters may disagree about specific aspects of the pending legislation, we believe that, taken as a whole, it is not worthy of our support. In fact, most of the so-called reforms contained in the bills have already been tried and proven to be a failure at the state level in Massachusetts.
Instead, we should act based on evidence of what works. Medicare, with its lower administrative costs and higher rates of satisfaction, remains the “gold standard” for real healthcare reform.
We anticipated the healthcare debate this year would focus on the true stakeholders: patients and those who care for them. But improved Medicare for All (single-payer) was pushed off the table, by Congress and the private health industry, preventing the American people from learning how access to quality, universal care can be financed without increasing cost to the public.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/healthc...
merrill (anonymous) says…
A third scenario as why Obama may not get this plan through:
Senate Tweaks Away YOUR Health Care
By Donna Smith
CommonDreams, December 11, 2009
As my grandmother used to say, “I was born on a weekend but not last weekend.” The latest insult to Americans hungry for a bit of health care justice for all comes from the news that the Senate health bill now allows insurance companies to place annual limits on payments for some catastrophic illnesses, like cancer.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. Another day. Another lie uncovered in the process. Another piece of this reform bill that favors the for-profit health insurance industry.
Associated Press' Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, " [The] health care loophole would allow coverage limits:" A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/decembe...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009...
JSpizias (anonymous) says…
My wife and I met with two physicians this week, her cardiologist and her mother's primary care physician. The cardiologist (a woman) is one of the best in KC, as is the primary care physician. Both are deeply pessimistic about what is happening to medicine, especially if the healthcare bill passes. While the AMA has supported the bill, it is imortant to note that less than 20% of physicians belong to the organization. The cardiologist belonged to a group of about 40 cardiologists and their group has now been bought by a hospital and they will become employees. The primary care physician noted that a number of her younger colleagues are considering changing professions. Older physicians are simply retiring.
If this thing is rammed through the Congress get ready for healthcare delivery to really fall apart. Physicians with whom I have spoken are probably more pessimistic than the public at large about what will happen to care if this bill becomes law. The Massachussetts experience provides a vivid example of what will happen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/hea...
Those who have knowledge of or involvement with the medical profession know that there is already a shortage of physicians and this will worsen. A "right" to healthcare does not mean
that one will be able to get an appointment to see one in a reasonable time. That is why Canadians who have national healthcare come to the US in droves. An MRI for a possible brain tumor for which one may have to wait a year or two is not very useful. One will probably die while waiting. The American people know what is going on-and they don't like it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...
raby627 (anonymous) says…
Like everything else in congress, if enough pork is loaded on, it will eventually pass. Constituent wishes don't matter anymore. I have yet to see a government run or government estimated program come in at or below budget. Throw that budget on top of our massive spending. Is there any reason to question why the American people are against this takeover of healthcare. It is obviously a power grab.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care:
A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.
“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.
Nanos Research was commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition (CHC), a nonpartisan group that supports Canada’s public health system, to conduct a random telephone survey of 1,001 Canadians between April 25 and May 3. The margin of accuracy for a sample of 1,001 is ±3.1 percentage points.
Meanwhile, Canada’s government just released a report titled “Healthy Canadians — A Federal Report on Comparable Health Indicators 2008.” Its findings almost identically mirror the CHC polling results. In that report, a leading indicator points to the fact that “Most Canadians (85.2 percent) aged 15 years and older reported being ‘very satisfied’ or ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the way overall health care services were provided, unchanged from 2005.”
Michael McBane, national coordinator of the CHC, commented: “Throughout our campaign, Canadians have told us they want to keep our health care system public and to improve it with made-in-Canada solutions.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/...
merrill (anonymous) says…
If the Obama bill passes healthcare will not go down the tubes...the bottom line. Fear mongering is absolute BS and should be ignored. Fear mongering comes from profiteers.
The Obama plan actually provides the insurance industry with a gravy train. Mandated insurance will be a gravy train and increase cost at the same time.
Why does it increase cost? Because the most expensive insurance industry in the world only wishes to insure younger healthy clients that do not cost them a great deal of money thus very big profits. If forced to insure all no matter what they figure their huge profits will take a hit which is simply not acceptable to CEO's who receive a $73 million retirement bonus.
improved Medicare Insurance for ALL would eliminate the above insurance system which would be the most fiscal responsible approach and would reduce the cost of governments and school districts.... whoaaaaaa this is a plus.
newmedia (anonymous) says…
I can't believe I just read that article in THIS newspaper !! Maybe there is Hope and Change after all.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
If only somebody had made another 500 copy/paste posts about HB 676 we would all have free candy and unicorns by now.....
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
Still hoping for change starting this November.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
The sooner Joe "where's the Scotch?" Biden and Dear Leader are returned to the private sector, the better off America will be.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Health Care NOW is expanded/Guaranteed Medicare Insurance for ALL and does understand that expanded/Guaranteed Medicare Insurance for ALL rates and fees need to be tweaked to meet current demands. The private health care system will not go broke no way jose'.
A primary reason the Medicare system was chosen is to save tons of tax dollars. This system is in place thus preventing the reinvention of the wheel. It is a program that works therefore why not adopt, improve and tweak where necessary. The health care industry is familiar with Medicare. AND several hundred million "clients" = substantial buying power thus reduction in cost for items such as prescriptions.
Should those who are pleased with their current insurance provider be forced to sign on?
Probably not. But it would save all money for excellent quality of care from the same health care provider. OR there will be freedom of choice to change health care providers across the board.
There are estimates that Expanded/Guaranteed Medicare For ALL Insurance will create 2.6 million jobs in the health care industry alone. The economic impact of this will create
more jobs throughout the economy.
merrill (anonymous) says…
If millions of healthy insured dropped their policies not only would they save thousands of dollars the insurance industry would faint in disbelief that this many people actually are awake and give a damn.
Paying out of pocket will save thousands of dollars a year.
Set up a health care investment account or annuity that makes YOU money instead of wealthy CEO's. Your health care annuity will NOT cancel out on when the poop hits fan.
Sooner or later more will do the same. Suddenly all of america would realize the medical insurance business has been doing nothing but making tons and tons of profit by way of fear mongering.
Just one among many reasons to drop the most expensive medical insurance in the world:
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.
More on this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
merrill (anonymous) says…
No Insurance Company Left Behind
By Katie Robbins –
On Tuesday, the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) coalition performed a “citizen’s arrest” of the insurance industry at a meeting of Americas Health Insurance Plans, the private health insurance industry’s leading lobbying group, in Washington, DC.
Thousands came out to support this action, and rightfully so. There is no other place we need to be than in the streets in protest of the egregious crimes of the insurance companies. Advocates of Medicare for All agree that the private insurance industry must be held accountable for its crimes, and that it should be put out of business…permanently.
Behind the progressive facade, HCAN ultimately supports the Democrat’s bill, which would mandate that everyone purchase insurance from the very same companies they call evil.
Howard Dean stated at the HCAN event, “This is a vote about one thing: are you for the insurance companies or are you for the American people?” This is absolutely true, but Dean’s language is misleading. He implies that voting for the bill will help protect the American people.
In reality, both the House and Senate bills have at their core a regressive and harmful mandate that will force people to purchase insurance plans that will not guarantee they get health care when they need it or that the care will be affordable. It will keep the insurance company bureaucrats in control, handing them hundreds of billions of public dollars to subsidize these utterly inadequate insurance plans. These plans are more akin to an umbrella that melts in the rain. Moreover, the proposed legislation that HCAN is fighting for will continue to drive up health costs, raise premiums, and send people, even those with insurance, into bankruptcy.
The health care crisis will not end, and this bill will not bring us closer to a real solution.
Some at the rally said this bill will get our foot in the door; this is the best health reform we can get right now, but Healthcare-NOW!, the campaign for national single-payer health insurance, remains committed to implementing a real solution to the health care crisis. To get there, we cannot compromise on our principles. We must start the conversation by acknowledging the right to health care for all people, and when we do that, single-payer will be on the table.
As advocates, we must continue pushing for a system that guarantees high quality health care to everyone. We know we can do this at less cost than our current system and less cost to the American people. We will continue fighting alongside the doctors, nurses, and committed activists that support a real solution that puts the health of our people before the profits of insurance companies.
When this current reform fails to pass, or fails to solve our health care crisis, we will be ready with the solution.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/no-insu...
Keith (anonymous) says…
All that the Canadians 'Know' is the Healthcare they receive. The baby born 'Blind', does not 'Know' what it is missing.
This certainly explains The Divine Sarah's trips to Canada for healthcare.
Stimudents, iPads, and Posterboard live unprecedented.
Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless you all.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnaly...
verity (anonymous) says…
Thank you, Paulette, for posting that.
goodcitizen (anonymous) says…
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010...
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy2Y5U...
For those of you who think health care reform bill is "too long". Try this on for size. Grayson's Hr 4789 is 4 pages long.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
I always appreciate Dolph's non partisan objective opinions and the way he can shed light on a complex problem and leave most of his readers completely in the dark.
You have a great future in Kansas politics.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Latest polls have shown that people are fairly close to being divided on this issue, so I have no idea what Dolph thinks qualifies as a "vast majority." He is wrong (once again), people voted overwhelmingly for Obama and the Democrats to bring real change to the nation, which they will do when this health care bill passes.
Dolph, go back to recommending illegal hiring practices at KU.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
I wonder if there's a correlation between how desperate the Dems are and how many times merrill cuts-and-pastes his tired old propaganda to the same thread?
And one more time for the slow folks - it's not how we pay for it that's the problem, the problem is that it costs too d*mned much. The Dems' plan does nothing - absolutely *nothing* - to address the costs of healthcare and creates a system that will make the current spiraling cost scenario look like the good old days. Until we address the cost of healthcare *delivery*, trying to find new ways to pay for it is pointless. If we bring those costs under control, then how we pay for it becomes irrelevant.
********************************************************
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Wow, every single one of the right wing talking points collected together and fired all at once. The game is getting truely desperate for the pay or die insurance industry."
Couldn't help but notice you had no response to those talking points.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"All that the Canadians 'Know' is the Healthcare they receive. The baby born 'Blind', does not 'Know' what it is missing."
Of course, that applies also to those in the US who are "blind" and have never experienced their health insurance coverage not being dictated by a profit motive.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Couldn't help but notice you had no response to those talking points."
Refuting Dolph's reality-lite blatherings would be a monumental endeavor.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"And one more time for the slow folks - it's not how we pay for it that's the problem, the problem is that it costs too d*mned much. The Dems' plan does nothing - absolutely *nothing* - to address the costs of healthcare and creates a system that will make the current spiraling cost scenario look like the good old days. Until we address the cost of healthcare *delivery*, trying to find new ways to pay for it is pointless. If we bring those costs under control, then how we pay for it becomes irrelevant."
Guess I'm slow, nota, but it seems to me that if 30 million citizens have insurance and get timely and preventative health care, the costs they are currently imposing on us all by waiting until catastrophic health treatment is necessary will be reduced and significant health care costs reduced. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share for the slow folks how that would not be the case.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Refuting Dolph's reality-lite blatherings would be a monumental endeavor. "
So your response is that it would be too hard to respond. Now there's a convincing argument.
"Guess I'm slow, nota"
You said it, I didn't.
"but it seems to me that if 30 million citizens have insurance and get timely and preventative health care, the costs they are currently imposing on us all by waiting until catastrophic health treatment is necessary will be reduced and significant health care costs reduced."
First, and I've said this before, that tired argument is based on the assumption that the people without insurance will choose not to pay their own bills. That belief system does not speak highly of the person making the argument.
"Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share for the slow folks how that would not be the case. "
Well, since you asked nicely ...
I'm old enough to remember when health insurance premiums had a lot more variance than they have today. For one thing, women paid a lot more than men, for the primary reason that women availed themselves of the healthcare system a lot more. They were much more likely to go to the doctor's when they had a cough or a sniffle, while men were more likely to wait until it became too serious to ignore. According to your argument, wouldn't that have made their healthcare *cheaper*? But it doesn't. All those small payouts actually cost a lot more than the occasional catastrophic payout, because there are a lot more of them - a situation that's likely to get worse rather than better if everyone had insurance, and the mistaken belief that all it costs for healthcare is what they pay in premiums and co-pays.
We actually rank pretty high on the delivery of preventative care in this country, one of the reasons we have about the best cancer survival rates in the world. The OECD, in their rather extensive and exhaustive analyses of healthcare costs, utilization, and quality, believes we do too *much* in the way of expensive diagnostic testing. For example, while we're not number one in the availability of CT and MRI scanners, we do top their list for scans performed. The data is incomplete and not directly comparable, but they do note that the number of scans has increased dramatically in recent years, while the incidence of illness has not. Other studies have suggested that as much as 40% of our healthcare dollars are spent on testing, procedures, and treatment that does absolutely nothing to improve our health. Again, this would get worse, not better, if everyone had insurance.
[continued]
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
[continued]
When we had health insurance, it was not unusual for one of my family members to be at the ER two or three times per week - and each time, they repeated the entire battery of tests at their disposal, including repeating CT scans or MRIs just a day or two after performing another one. Now they're more likely to look at the test results from the earlier visit, if they want the test(s) at all.
The last time that family member went to the ER when we had insurance, she was pregnant. They couldn't do anything because of that - no scans, not even an x-ray, no meds, nothing but a couple of standard blood tests. The bill for this 'observation' was over $12,000. I was recently at the same ER, without insurance. I got the same blood tests, and also some IV meds (twice, actually, since the first IV blew). My bill? Less than $900. Now, I know my insurance company didn't pay the $12,000 bill, but if they paid 20 cents on the dollar, it was still almost three times what I got charged for more services.
You can't tell me, in all seriousness, that you don't think providers do more and charge more when they're billing insurance. Recently a local physician wrote an LTE arguing for the passage of these so-called 'reforms'. The website of that physician states that his uninsured patients should discuss their financial concerns with the provider, who can then elect to forgo some of the expensive testing or perhaps prescribe some cheaper meds. Now, why does this two-tiered system even exist? Shouldn't the provider offer those same cost-saving options to those who *do* have insurance? Because that doctor is either forgoing necessary care with those patients who can't afford to pay, or he's soaking the insurance companies for unnecessary treatment.
On top of all this, scott, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't argue for the necessity of insurance reform based on all those people who can't get affordable insurance due to pre-existing or major illness, and then turn around and claim that adding those same people to the pool would somehow bring down total costs. The math just doesn't work that way.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says…
I love the looney left reasoning on this. "Once we've shoved this down your throat, you'll learn to love it."
Yeah, right.
And, Richard, could you possibly post some more outdated, irrelevant spam for us later in this thread? We're learning to love your OCD affliction, too.
Yeah, right.
__________________________________________________________
Who is "Richard?"
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
And in other news:
>>> "Senate, Obama spar over health plan's pet projects"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/a...
Without all those pet projects (aka "pork"), watch how fast the whole house of cards collapses.
camper (anonymous) says…
Here are my 1st and 2nd choices:
1) Medicare for all. Increase Medicare paycheck deductions from 1.5% to 3%. In this scenario, everyone contributes to healthcare, everyone is covered, and costs are spread out more equitably. Private health insurance is optional, and business large and small need not be weighed down any longer by the burden of providing this benefit to employees. The 1.5% increase in taxes will be offset by a higher wage as well as higher employment (and less outsourcing to boot).
2) Public option. In this scenario, those who are not in an employer provided plan can elect to buy coverage from the Feds. This will increase the number of insured and therby reduce costs for everyone because of a greatly expanded pool contributing to the system.
And I might add that those who fear that reform such as this is Socialism: I counter that the Insurance Biz is a huge institution and really a quasi government in itself. Not too long ago I wandered up the steps to our HR department. I asked honestly, "can I elect to not receive coverage and instead just get a higher paycheck? " After getting a "are you crazy" look, the kind HR person said, "absolutely not!" True story.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
What's the new Senator from MA saying?
"Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said....
...he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar healthcare legislation.
So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the president still hasn't gotten the message.
Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the healthcare bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.
And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises.
They pledged transparency. Instead, we have a healthcare bill tainted by secrecy, concealed cost, and full of backroom deals – and that’s just not right. They should do better. The American people expect more.
They pledged a true bipartisan effort. Instead, they have resorted to bending the rules, and they now intend to seize control of healthcare in America on a strict party-line vote.
In speech after speech on his healthcare plan, the president has tried to convince us that what he is proposing will be good for America. But, how can it be good for America if it raises taxes by a half-trillion dollars and costs a trillion dollars or more to implement? In addition, how can it be good if it takes another half a trillion dollars away from seniors on Medicare, and still includes all the backroom deals you have been hearing about for months?...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washi...
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Nota:
If, under the current profit driven health care insurance system, 100 people without insurance develop cancer and present at emergency rooms for heroic efforts, the cost is stated as X over the course of, say, the next ten years.
If, under a reformed health care insurance system, those same hundred people have health care insurance and get regular health care exams and treatment, the total cost over the next ten years is Y.
Are X and Y equal? If not, which is greater?
meggers (anonymous) says…
Most Americans don't understand the health care plan, thanks to the right wing tools that are so adept at creating phantom boogeymen.
Sociaism! Death panels! Gubmint killing granny!
Meanwhile, the insurance companies continue to gobble up more of our economy, and those of us with insurance pay not just for our own health care, but for the ever increasing cost of the uninsured. Nice trick, Mr. Simons. You should feel proud.
overthemoon (anonymous) says…
So many American's oppose the health care bill because they are not evaluating the bill that's evolved, they are believing the Fox News and Republican lies. In fact, when asked about individual provisions in the bill, they favor them overwhelmingly. And yet the Fox viewing American is willing to shoot themselves in the foot opposing a bill that will benefit each and every American in the long run. Idiocy.
There is no argument from anyone that will prove otherwise. Period.
camper (anonymous) says…
Most of the Town Hall people I see are old, fat and angry farts who are happy to receive socialism via Medicare who accept Socialism when it s to their benefit. But they want to deny younger people (and famiies) who have the same concerns.
These town hall meetings, with all due respect, resemble a bunch of unhealthy inbred mountaineers who are stupid beyond belief.
See for yourself,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBa9K...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Are X and Y equal? If not, which is greater?"
My, wouldn't the insurance business be a breeze if we knew which one hundred people were going to get cancer? Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
Your question would have been more applicable if you asked which is more expensive - having ten thousand people run to the doctor getting unnecessary x-rays/CT scans/blood tests/antibiotics/etc. every time they have a cough, or treating those 100 people for whom that cough really is a major illness?
All of which is pretty much moot, as this country already does a better job at preventive care for cancer, much better than, say, the UK, which (with their national health care system) has about the worst cancer survival rates in the developed world.
**********************************************************
meggers (anonymous) says…
"Most Americans don't understand the health care plan, thanks to the right wing tools that are so adept at creating phantom boogeymen."
and
overthemoon (anonymous) says…
"So many American's oppose the health care bill because they are not evaluating the bill that's evolved, they are believing the Fox News and Republican lies."
Ah, the last desperate gasp from the liberals: 'If you disagree with me, you must not understand the issue as well as I do.'
So I'll repeat the same question I ask every time one of you 'reform' supporters makes that claim:
I assume, meg and moon, that both of you have read all 2200+ pages of the Senate bill, plus the 'reconciliation' proposal - that's not even written yet? Funny how those on your side of the issue can speak out in favor of spending a trillion dollars or so without knowing what the money's being spent on, but those who oppose it are wrong to do so without knowing.
Incidentally, I have read plenty of the Senate bill as passed, enough to know that their proposals do nothing whatsoever to address the real problem - the cost of healthcare *delivery*, not insurance. And to borrow a line from moon, "There is no argument from anyone that will prove otherwise. Period. "
camper (anonymous) says…
No, I have not said this before, but it is sad to see old folks against health care reform. Many of them put there asses on the line during WWII, survived the Great Depression and flu outbreak. My own father received bypass surgury and prostate surgury all on the dime of Medicare. Lets be honest, but if you live over 65 you are going to suck much more out of the industry way more than you ever contibuted. You should be thankful for the Socialistic medicare. Instead you want to deny younger folks the same benefits you now receive.
So I say don't listen to the fat old, Nascar fan, townhall, Sara Palin lovin lunatics.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"My, wouldn't the insurance business be a breeze if we knew which one hundred people were going to get cancer? Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way."
That wasn't my point nota. But go ahead and avoid it if you think that there is any intellectual honesty in doing so.
parrothead8 (anonymous) says…
What a load of horse puckey. The world is not a black and white place, so try looking at more than two numbers when reading a poll.
Simons repeatedly cites random polls that he never provides. I looked up the polls. It's pretty easy to tell, by looking at the follow-up questions in the polls, that many of the people who don't support health care reform say they don't support it because they think the current ideas on the table don't go far enough.
Since I'm guessing that many of you don't want to go to all the work I did to find all the polls, I'll give you a present. Complete with links to many of the polls, here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"That wasn't my point nota. But go ahead and avoid it if you think that there is any intellectual honesty in doing so."
Well, scott, since you didn't address a single one of the points in my post, perhaps I didn't feel obligated to try to figure out yours.
Speaking of intellectual honesty, scott, how does changing the equation instead of responding to my post constitute intellectual honesty? Or asking narrowly defined, misleading questions?
Your question was pointless. You're not talking about the same hundred people, so there's no basis for comparison. Does preventative care for 100 people cost less than treating 100 people for cancer? Duh. But that assumes every one of those 100 people would have gotten cancer, which is not the case. It also assumes that the preventive care would prevent all those 100 people from getting cancer, which is also not the case. Ask me a question that compares apples to apples before trying to claim I'm the one being intellectually dishonest.
For a single person, preventive care costs less than treating an illness. Again, duh. But again, that assumes the person will get the illness, and that the preventive care will actually keep him from getting it. And preventive care for a *population* can, indeed, cost more than treating those few members of that population who will contract that illness. We're not talking about whether these 'reforms' will make healthcare cheaper for *YOU*, scott, but whether they would do anything at all to bring down the multi-*trillion* dollar expenditures that we, as a population, have to pay. Guarantees of payment don't bring down costs, scott, they drive them up.
Until the cost of healthcare is addressed, arguing about how to pay for it is pointless. If we bring those costs down, how we pay for it becomes irrelevant.
overthemoon (anonymous) says…
funny, the CBO report seems to know where the money is being spent and what revenues are coming in. Guess Fox News only gives one side of the balance sheet, plus a couple of billion to make it an even trillion. LIES. By omission or by providing the wrong infomation. Either way. LIES.
The bottom line of the CBO report: (The whole thing can be read at http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=488)
The gross cost of the proposed expansions in insurance coverage over those 10 years is now projected to be $875 billion, reflecting subsidies provided through insurance exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers. Those costs are partly offset by revenues from an excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and net savings from other coverage-related sources, leaving a net cost of $624 billion for the coverage provisions. Other provisions affecting direct spending save $478 billion, on net—mostly in Medicare—and other provisions affecting revenues reduce the deficit by $264 billion, on net. Thus, the net effect on deficits of the bill as a whole equals $624 billion less $478 billion less $264 billion, or a reduction of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would increase outlays by $355 billion and increase revenues by $473 billion between 2010 and 2019.
And the really sad thing is, if we had gone with a full public option or even a single payer option the savings would have been greater. But we had to appease the poor minority who didn't get enough votes to be a majority with ridiculous and costly concessions.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Physicians for a National Health Program just advanced to the second round of Change.org’s 2010 Ideas for Change in America competition with their “Improved Medicare for All” idea.
Please help “Improved Medicare for All” become a finalist in this competition by voting for their idea here. You can vote in less than 20 seconds.
The top 10 voted ideas will be presented at an event in Washington, DC to relevant members of the Obama Administration, and then promoted to Change.org’s full community of more than 1 million people. So we could have a real impact.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/pnhp-ad...
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim2 (anonymous) says…
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Who is "Richard?"
*****************************************************
Aggie, don't feign (?) ignorance. It doesn't become you. You know exactly who Richard is, as do the vast majority of the regular participants here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www2.ljworld.com/users/Richard/
Page not found
The requested page could not be found.
merrill (anonymous) says…
The Healthcare-NOW! network has grown tremendously over the past year. New single-payer coalitions and groups are forming all over the country, and more individuals are becoming involved in our work.
To keep up, Healthcare-NOW! must expand our capacity and resources to continue building the movement for meaningful reform that will end our healthcare crisis.
That’s why we need you to join Healthcare-NOW!.
We’re now offering membership packages for individuals and organizations that will make our nation-wide, single-payer network stronger.
http://www.healthcare-now.org/become-...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
overthemoon (anonymous) says…
"funny, the CBO report seems to know where the money is being spent and what revenues are coming in. Guess Fox News only gives one side of the balance sheet, plus a couple of billion to make it an even trillion. LIES. By omission or by providing the wrong infomation. Either way. LIES."
Maybe if you stopped drinking the kool-aid being served up by Rachel Madcow, moonie, you wouldn't make yourself look so foolish:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/a...
>>> "Democrats are awaiting cost assessments from the Congressional Budget Office that will allow them to finish details."
The CBO report you referred to was for the bill the Senate passed. The CBO has not released a report on the proposals for 'reconciliation'.
You might also have noticed that the CBO report doesn't take into account future discretionary spending.
And it's really pointless anyway - I really couldn't care less what the proposed 'reform' is going to cost Uncle Sam. I care about what it's going to cost the rest of us. So I'll ask again, moonie (since you didn't answer the first time) - have you read the Senate bill (I won't bother asking if you've read the reconciliation, since it isn't available yet), and if so, perhaps you'll explain to us all how the proposed 'reforms' will reduce the cost of healthcare?
merrill (anonymous) says…
improved Medicare Health Insurance = Pro Business and Pro Consumer Health insurance! yes!
improved Medicare Health Insurance = reduced costs of managing city,state and federal governments = less tax dollars
improved Medicare Health Insurance = reduced costs of managing public school districts
Let ME pay for improved Medicare Health Insurance with MY tax dollars for my improved Medicare Health insurance.
Here's the deal. improved Medicare Health Insurance is not a free ride and never will be perhaps with few exceptions.
You see my tax dollars will pay for my portion therefore no one else would be paying for my improved Medicare Health Insurance coverage. A 3.3% payroll tax is doable.
However if you listen to the republican party NOT and Max Baucus you would be led to believe that my tax dollars are not my tax dollars. How can that be?
The fact that improved Medicare Health Insurance would be paid from the rather substantial tax dollar cookie jars simply means that no monthly or weekly deductions would come out of my pay check per se..
Since federal, state, and local governments collect trillions in taxes of all kinds—income, sales, property, corporate etc etc this is how medical bills would be paid as it is now.
You see as we speak the government tax dollars support the medical insurance industry to the tune of at least $1.2 trillion a year which is quite a gravy train I'd say. Next year this will increase by changing nothing and not passing the improved Medicare Health Insurance Act.
improved Medicare Health Insurance is an extraordinary deal that would free up more expendable cash to be spent elsewhere thus creating new jobs. Things like birthdays, home improvements, investments,wellness programs or a fuel efficient automobile
jackbinkelman (anonymous) says…
Dolph, I disagree. [I didn't bother reading your diatribe, but I know what it says.] I read this very good explanation of our current health care industry recently. http://www.tnr.com/article/health-car... "When Alma Dickson slipped on an icy sidewalk in Dallas, Texas, she knew she was hurt. But she wasn’t sure that she could pay for the medical care she needed. The year was 1929 and Dickson, a schoolteacher, didn’t make enough money to pay for x-rays and treatment on her own..."
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
merrill (anonymous) says…
"Let ME pay for improved Medicare Health Insurance with MY tax dollars for my improved Medicare Health insurance."
If *YOU* want to pay for *YOUR* healthcare with *YOUR* money, please feel free to do so. But if *YOU* are paying for *YOUR* healthcare with *YOUR* money, then why does *MY* money have to enter into the equation at all, merrill?
******************************************************************
jackbinkelman (anonymous) says…
"Dolph, I disagree. [I didn't bother reading your diatribe, but I know what it says.]"
And if *THAT* doesn't define the typical liberal/Democrat in a nutshell...
Jhammons (Jeffrey Hammons) says…
There are more baseless claims and biased opinions in here than a Tea-Party meeting.
You people act like certain lives are not worth of saving. If people don't have money to pay for their health care then they should die, right? No, Social Darwinism is not something you practice. Government is for good of the people. Not for the well-being of those with money. It's goal is to help as many people as possible. This bill will do that.
If one life is saved by the bill then it's means are justified. If you don't like it, I'm sure you have the money to leave the country. Why don't you go to Canada, France, or the UK? Oh wait, you can't do that, they have nationalized health care too! You can always go to China or Russia, you'll fit in better there anyway.
You people complain so much about America, but have no problem enjoying all of the benefits that America offers. You're no better than a bunch of Jehovah's witnesses.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
I am still wondering how so many banks loaned money to people to buy houses when they could not afford it. Did we really clean up that mess? I don't think so.
The same crooks are still out there. The same politicians are still in office.
I imagine there are a lot of people in congress who are glad they can argue about health care so we don't go looking for more criminals on wall street and in Washington, DC.
How convenient.
Throw the bums out.
merrill (anonymous) says…
It has been estimated that the $1.2 trillion big government tax dollars per year that have flowed into the med insurance insurance profit jars will more than cover all citizens under the improved Medicare Insurance for All Plan.
As it is those $1.2 trillion big government tax dollars cover only a special few like government employees even those who keep telling WE taxpayers WE must pay for theirs...... yes our elected officials love their socialized insurance plan.
Never hear elected officials bitchin about their insurance that big government tax dollars provide which says that socialized medical insurance is extraordinary.
There are tons of people out here in the real world who either have no insurance or under insurance yet are forced to pay the insurance costs of elite government officials who say NO to millions of americans.
The idea that improved Medicare Insurance for All Plan would reduce the cost of governments,reduce the overall cost of living, generally improve our quality of life and create millions of jobs in the process is a no brainer.
YES I am fully aware the vocal insurance profiteers might take a hit. Then I suggest do what Bill and Melinda Gates did......get rid of those stocks.
There is no way the insurance industry will guarantee to provide care for anyone unless somehow they are receiving $18,310 -$20,000 a year per policy. Whether that be provided by way of employers or a partnership....anything less is simply very high risk for consumers.
snoozey (anonymous) says…
It's not a reform - it's a guarantee that the insurance/pharmaceuticals/trial lawyer contingent continue to suck off the system while providing no health care benefit whatsoever. I don't think the voters have been stupid enough to fall for what has been put forward by the professional political class but you can't blame the clods we voted in for trying - after all we had the gross lack of intelligence to put them into office - on both sides of the aisle.
merrill (anonymous) says…
The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes, according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein.
Tax dollars pay for Medicare and Medicaid, for the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service. Tax dollars pay for health coverage for federal, state, and municipal government employees and their families, as well as for many employees of private companies working on government contracts.
It makes little difference whether the government gives taxpayers (or their employers) a deduction for their health care spending, on the one hand, or collects their taxes then pays for their health care, either directly or via a voucher, on the other.
Moreover, tax dollars also pay for critical elements of the health care system apart from direct care—Medicare funds much of the expensive equipment hospitals use, for instance, along with all medical residencies.
====================================================================
* All told, then, tax dollars already pay for at least $1.2 trillion in annual U.S. health care expenses. Since federal, state, and local governments collected approximately $3.5 trillion in taxes of all kinds—income, sales, property, corporate—in 2006, that means that more than one third of the aggregate tax revenues collected in the United States that year went to pay for health care.
** Recognizing these hidden costs that U.S. households pay for health care today makes it far easier to see how a universal single-payer system—with all of its obvious advantages—can cost most Americans less than the one we have today.
*** Medicare must exist in the fragmented world that is American health care—but no matter how creative the opponents of single-payer get, there is no way they can show convincingly how the administrative costs of a single-payer system could come close to the current level.
===================================================================
More on this matter:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Remember when Sean Penn said that lying journalists should be jailed? He was talking about people like Dolph.
nota: "And if *THAT* doesn't define the typical liberal/Democrat in a nutshell..."
nota, trying to strike out at someone for making a sweeping generalization by making your own sweeping generalization is just sad. Could you be a bigger fool if you tried?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"Because of Obama’s efforts, Americans oppose health plan"
There, I fixed it for you.
bea, do you share Mr. Madonna's wish for people with opposing viewpoints to die of rectal cancer?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"Could you be a bigger fool if you tried?"
Well, I could be you.
Go ahead, bea, and tell me that the sentiment expressed by jackbinkelman is an isolated case - even on this thread, let alone these message boards - or Larryville. Go ahead and tell me there aren't way too many jackbinkelmans out there. I can always use a laugh.
What's really sad is that people like jack - that say 'I disagree, even though I didn't listen to what you said', are doing so while accusing conservatives of resisting the Democrats' 'reform' measures without knowing what's in them. Truly priceless.
Almost as priceless as your defending him.
***********************************************************
Jhammons (Jeffrey Hammons) says…
"If one life is saved by the bill then it's means are justified. "
Nice sentiment.
A little impractical, and out of touch with reality, but a nice sentiment.
So would it be worth 2 trillion to save 2 lives? 5 trillion to save 5 lives? Do you see the problem with that line of reasoning?
"You people complain so much about America, but have no problem enjoying all of the benefits that America offers. You're no better than a bunch of Jehovah's witnesses."
Uh - forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but wouldn't it be the people who are fighting so hard to *change* the system, arguing that we should be more like other countries, that are 'complaining so much about America'?
BTW, Jeffrey, does your belief that the proposed legislation's "means are justified" if the one life that's saved is a Jehovah's Witness?
**************************************************************
overthemoon (anonymous) says…
"funny, the CBO report seems to know where the money is being spent and what revenues are coming in."
I wanted to revisit that point for a moment.
Tell me, moon - did the CBO issue a report on the bailout bill? Did they know where *that* money was going?
But back to the legislation at hand. The Senate bill, as passed, has a section on preventive care. At the end of it there's a subsection titled - I don't remember the exact wording and don't feel like looking it up right now - something to the effect of 'The sense of the Congress' on preventive measures. The so-called 'sense' of the Congress is that the effectiveness of preventive measures is hard to quantify, for one reason that the effects might not be seen for many years. One of the things they say that's needed is an improvement in the way we detect and measure such 'benefits'. So I'm asking - if the Congress themselves doesn't know how this bill is going to save money down the road, what, exactly, is the CBO basing their projections on?
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Gee nota, snappy comeback.
Yes, absolutely I am saying "the sentiment expressed by jackbinkelman is an isolated case." It represents jackb, not "liberals" in general, as you put it. That is why I recognized his comment as a "sweeping generalization." My statement to you was in no way a defense of jack.
When I saw his post I rolled my eyes, because his saying he was against something he hasn't read is just silly. What instantly flashed through my mind were the many times I've seen conservatives (usually right-wing Christian conservatives) criticize things like movies they have never seen or books they've never read or music they never intend to listen to. However, I don't think that behavior represents "conservatives" in general, only certain conservatives. The fact that jack's comments make you ascribe it to all "liberals" just demonstrates that your thinking is as narrow as the comment you are criticizing.
I'll say it again. You criticized a sweeping generalization by making a sweeping generalization. Brilliant.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Medical insurance is relieving millions of as much expendable cash as possible as we speak..
And finding a shocking number of supporters who say PLEASE charge me more which may indicate some have lost their minds and their wallets.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Senate Report Finds Insurers Wrongfully Charged Consumers Billions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Anybody file for a refund?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
If only we'd seen another 500 copy/paste posts about HB 676, we'd all be wearing cheerful, bright clothing while enjoying our free candy and unicorns by now....
merrill (anonymous) says…
The med insurance industry is blowing $1.4 million a day to protect their source of $1.2 trillion big government health care tax dollars. The money laundering agent is the Chamber of Commerce.
This is why the increase in premiums has occurred. There is no other reason for them to increase their premiums because nothing has changed and will not change before 2017
if it changes at all.
The industry loves its' loyal consumers who follow their directions like sheep.
The republican party is up to their ears in special interest campaign money coming from the insurance industry. Of course this will increase the cost of YOUR insurance... let's not be stupid.
As for the med insurance misinformation campaign to save their $1.2 trillion big government tax dollar cookie jar ..... yes they are charging consumers all they can get away with to get their big profits back in line.
After all those poor little CEO's simply cannot make it in life without a $73 million retirement bonus. Damn don't you just feel bad for them.
Hell not only are these crooks screwing their small time consumers they are really screwing their shareholders ..... shareholders have wayyyy too much pride and ego to walk away from such a status symbol.
I say if someone wants to follow status symbols then look towards Bill and Melinda Gates who cashed in their health industry stocks. Can we say the writing is on the wall?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
merrill (anonymous) says…
"The republican party is up to their ears in special interest campaign money coming from the insurance industry. Of course this will increase the cost of YOUR insurance... let's not be stupid."
Speaking of stupid, merrill, the Republicans aren't the ones who wrote the bill in question, which you yourself have criticized as giving the farm to the insurance companies. See, merrill, the Dems control Congress and the White House - I'm surprised you haven't heard, it was in all the papers.
"After all those poor little CEO's simply cannot make it in life without a $73 million retirement bonus. Damn don't you just feel bad for them."
No, I don't feel bad for them. But unlike the entitled whiners of Larryville, I don't resent them, either. If they can get that much, more power to them. Maybe if you'd made it through school, merrill, you might have been asked to run a $50 billion company, and have been able to command such compensation. But then, why do that, when you can mow lawns for a living and demand the government take away from them to pay your bills, because (waah waah waah) they have more than you do?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"Yes, absolutely I am saying "the sentiment expressed by jackbinkelman is an isolated case.""
Of course, you would.
Tell me, bea - how many times have you yourself used the phrase 'Party of "No"' on these forums, claiming the Republicans don't offer any alternatives? Have you read those alternatives, available in such places as the RNC's website? Have you even read the proposed legislation that you argue in favor of?
You *are* a jackbinkelman, bea.
But thanks for trying to deny how rampant such attitudes are - as I said, I can always use the laughs.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
"More important, several polls reveal that many of the people who oppose Mr. Obama's health care plan do so not because they fear it will go too far in changing the status quo but because they think it does not go far enough....At some point, the public may give up on bipartisanship. Because, as AP found, only 15 percent say they are content to leave the health care system as it is now." === http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opin...
=========
This an interesting debate, and one the demagogues may be winning. The D's have been their usual unorganized, cowardly selves, but what else is new? If nothing else, the R's are disciplined in their message and they are good at shaping it in ways what work to their advantage. The editor's column confirms this.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Elections have consequences. So will the next one. The Democrats will be blown out of the capitol as quickly as they blew in. The Wall Street criminals and their cronies in congress wrecked the US economy in the middle of a presidential campaign. The republicans were too slow and too stupid with their response; they misread the anger in the electorate, and they underestimated Mr. Obama's ability to read from a teleprompter and connect with the angry masses. Thats what got the dems in office, but it won't keep them there. Now they are the ones on the worng side of the angry masses, and they will suffer the same result.
The most important public service ObamaCare will provide in the mean time is hasten the day when our country finally goes bankrupt and the Chinese stop loaning us money. Only then will things be bad enough for the average thinking American to finally do something about it. We all know whats coming, but Americans traditionally are not moved to make significant changes in our government until things are significantly screwed up. The next domino to fall will be inflation. Gas prices are a great early indicator.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
10 Inconvenient truths about the Grand Mess AKA Obamacare:
"1. The cost of coverage will rise for the middle class.
According to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a health care scholar at the free-market American Enterprise Institute, the new bill will actually make it more costly for middle class families to buy health insurance by forcing those who shop on the individual market to buy generous, but expensive plans mandated under the new law. Middle class families earning $88,000 or more a year won't qualify for health care subsidies. A family earning $100,000 would end up spending nearly a quarter of their net income on health care.
2. Health insurance premiums will go up for nearly half of Americans.
Health care premiums for those in the individual insurance market will rise 10 percent to 13 percent by 2016 under the plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While the cost of premiums will be subsidized with taxpayer dollars for 57 percent of those enrolled in the new government-run insurance exchanges, the 43 percent of enrollees who do not qualify for assistance will have to pay higher costs...."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pol...
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Future Campaign Add Themes:
Why isn’t President Obama and his family, not to mention congress, subject to the same restrictions, requirements and penalties of ObamaCare that everyone else is?
How can an insurance company charge lower premiums when its healthier policy holders leave the insurance pool and they're forced to insure people who are already sick?
How are our children and grandchildren going to pay off the massive debt they will have to overcome because of ObamaCare?
Why won't the dems defend the gimmicks they used to force the Congressional Budget Office to falsely report that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit?
Why are we fining a young person 2.2% of their income if they refuse to buy an insurance policy they think they won't need that would cost them 10% of their income?
Why did the Democrats absolutely refuse to consider simple, free, and easily enforced private sector options, such as allowing insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines, before enacting ObamaCare we cannot pay for?
Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the authority to use its police power to force a free American citizen to enter into a contract to purchase something from a private company against their will.
What caused Caterpillar to announce that as many as 1000 workers will lose their jobs after the passage of ObamaCare.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat