November 30, 2010

Cantor: We'll Be Including The Most Popular Basic Bits of ObamaCare When We Propose Our New Health Care Reform
— Ace

I have dreaded posting this because I know it will be bait for me to get into arguments with people, which I just don't want to do. So I won't.

I'll just note my belief that the odds of defeating ObamaCare politically will go up significantly if there's some kind of more-attractive but less-intrusive replacement on the horizon. Conservatives have seized, kind of oddly, on ObamaCare's keep-kids-on-your-insurance-'till-they're-26 provision, but I think it's too popular to get rid of, and trying to get rid of it will threaten the more important goal of getting rid of socialized medicine.

The other part is also popular -- no barring coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but it's also extremely costly and without any good way to implement it. The problem is, of course, that you can't have free riders skipping insurance all their lives until the day they're diagnosed with a costly illness, then signing up and paying what healthy people pay.

I don't know how you get around this -- you either have to force people to buy insurance, which is of course a no-go (and might in fact get ObamaCare struck down by the courts), or you... no idea. You just subsidize their game-the-system behavior.

You could make people pay very high premiums indeed if they do this, penalizing the game-the-system types, but in the end, you can't penalize them enough to make this an unattractive proposition.

Politico Spins: Politico wrote its article suggesting that parts of ObamaCare would be "retained," according Eric Cantor. I always knew that was false-- a false way to put it. Cantor wants to replace ObamaCare, repeal it, then propose a new reform; Politico tries to suggest that ObamaCare would be "retained." No, no.

Anyway, I knew Politico was lying about that part of it from the get-go and declined to follow their spin. However, Eric Cantor is proposing that two popular parts of ObamaCare be part of the replacement bill; that part's true.

Politico updated to note its initial lie:

Editor's note: This article was changed at 1:57 p.m.. The Hill incorrectly reported in the initial version that Cantor wants to keep certain provisions of the healthcare law intact. The article was revised to emphasize that Cantor and House Republicans are pursuing a full repeal of healthcare reform while addressing issues in the law, such as pre-existing conditions and allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plan, in their replacement bill. Both provisions are in current law, but Republicans would deal with them differently than Democrats did in the bill that passed earlier this year.

I changed a word in my own headline to further distance myself from Politico's spin.

Honestly, on this one, I wasn't fooled. I just sort of assumed Politico was deliberately distorting Cantor's words and read past that.


Posted by: Ace at 12:01 PM | Comments (222)
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.

1 There's no way to make "no preexisting conditions" work without a personal mandate. I mean - there just ain't. We're boned worse than a pooch with a hobo.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 12:04 PM (tJjm/)

2
2700 pages of crap.

Scrap it all. Start over.

We have the time. After all, nothings needs to be "fixed" right away, anyway.

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:04 PM (uFokq)

3 CoolCzech, I suppose you could just garish people's wages to cover the costs of procedure. That is, they get the insurance, sort of, and thus the treatment, but the insurer is allowed to attach/garnish their wages to get back much of the costs of this deal.

Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 12:06 PM (nj1bB)

4

I think it's simply bad negotiation.  If you give in on X, then the battleground moves to the left.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 12:06 PM (BvBKY)

5 Sigh. Two of the most expensive provisions and they keep them. This has "focus group" written all over it. Good thing nothing will happen to a GOP bill until January 2013.

Posted by: joncelli© at November 30, 2010 12:06 PM (RD7QR)

6 The grand experiment is over, folks.  It was a good run that freedom had there for awhile.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 12:06 PM (HIlgc)

7 Clearly no Republicans either have no clue why they won in November... or have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in their own values. This is just inexcusably bizarre.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 12:07 PM (tJjm/)

8 Honestly how fucking stupid are these politicians that can not fathom the incredibly complex concept of "NO"? No wonder the country is bankrupt!

Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at November 30, 2010 12:07 PM (ijjAe)

9
1. Get government out of health care
2. Allow more competition.

Then watch as cost of premiums decrease.

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:07 PM (uFokq)

10 Throw it all out.  ALL OF IT.  Start over from scratch.  Allow insurance to be sold across state lines.   Allow individuals to join pools.  Allow individuals to buy just catastrophic insurance. 

Posted by: kathysaysso at November 30, 2010 12:08 PM (ZtwUX)

11 >>> Two of the most expensive provisions and they keep them the kids till 26 is expensive? I wouldn't have figured that. Let me ask, are policyholders supposed to pay extra to cover those kids? In other words, I'm asking, is this provision just giving you the right to buy insurance for your kids until they're 26 or does it mandate insurance cover them and spread the costs out among all policyholders? Because if it's the former, that seems pretty reasonable, and if it's the latter, the GOP can offer to replace that with the former.

Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 12:08 PM (nj1bB)

12 Auschwitz wasn't all bad.  We should keep the good parts, delete the bad parts, and not reinvent the wheel.  I mean the free communal housing and mandatory volunteer community service were great ideas.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 30, 2010 12:09 PM (xxgag)

13 "Pre-existing conditions" will bankrupt every insurance company.  But, this is the point, right?

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:09 PM (+sBB4)

14 That is, they get the insurance, sort of, and thus the treatment, but the insurer is allowed to attach/garnish their wages to get back much of the costs of this deal. Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 05:06 PM (nj1bB) Or - at least the total amount of the premiums they would have been paying all along if they weren't simply waiting to get sick... THAT might work. On the other hand, people are more interested than getting something for nothing, instead of paying their fair share.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 12:09 PM (tJjm/)

15 Cantor said he did not say this. The media is playing you.

What he said there were some parts of the bill that would be part of their replace bill. Big difference. Even the Politico corrected their article.

Posted by: tarpon at November 30, 2010 12:09 PM (g0QB8)

16  
Am I that naive?

Am I fucking dunce?
Is it really this difficult?

Why don't we, I dunno, look back at a time when health care costs were manageable for most people and try to duplicate those conditions?

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:10 PM (uFokq)

17 Oh:  Update

Editor's note: This article was changed at 1:57 p.m.. The Hill incorrectly reported in the initial version that Cantor wants to keep certain provisions of the healthcare law intact. The article was revised to emphasize that Cantor and House Republicans are pursuing a full repeal of healthcare reform while addressing issues in the law, such as pre-existing conditions and allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plan, in their replacement bill. Both provisions are in current law, but Republicans would deal with them differently than Democrats did in the bill that passed earlier this year.

Posted by: kathysaysso at November 30, 2010 12:10 PM (ZtwUX)

18

The problem with having to pay higher rates for pre-existing conditions is when you have insurance, develop some health problem, and then change jobs.  Since you can't keep the same insurance if you cross state lines, and frequently don't have the same options at a new job in the same state, that means you basically can never leave your current job.

So you allow people to get the healthy rate for pre-existing conditions IF they can prove they had insurance when they developed the condition.  Or you just start allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, and move away from making it part of your pay package.

Posted by: Laughingdog at November 30, 2010 12:10 PM (y67bA)

19 The way to handle this is to make insurance cheaper for everyone by eliminating coverage mandates and making all policy choices available across state lines.

Posted by: texette at November 30, 2010 12:10 PM (+61wI)

20 These are false choices.

The FEDERAL government should NOT be involved in healthcare other than making certain the states aren't raising barriers to health care providers and insurance companies in other states.

That. Is. It.

There is no 'right' to healthcare. People 'need' healthcare, but their need should not impose a burden or requirement upon other people. They might NEED healthcare, but can you force a free person, as a Doctor is, to provide for that need? 

The current state of our healthcare is a DIRECT result of government interference. So the answer, is, of course, more government interference.

Posted by: blindside at November 30, 2010 12:10 PM (x7g7t)

21 The way to kill Obamacare would have been to attack the most unpopular features - like the individual mandate. Without it, the no-preexisting conditions provision couldn't have worked. Thanks for throwing all that away, GOP. Why were we so excited about the November results, anyway?

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 12:11 PM (tJjm/)

22 Obama lied about most of what was in Obamacare, or he didn't have a clue as to what was really in it.  Cantor can fib a little here and there to get people on his side. 

Posted by: kansas at November 30, 2010 12:11 PM (mka2b)

23 I don't really care about the "kids until 26" thing. First of all, I was on my parents' plan in the 90s for a LONG time, so it's not exactly new. They did have to pay, it' not like I was free to cover. (I paid and it was still cheaper than an individual IBX plan) anyway that's no big deal to me. Even now my cousins who are doing this (getting "on" their parents' plans at 25) are in no different position than I was - paying only slightly less than an individual plan. not the hill to die on in other words. We need to get the whole thing open to competition - cross-state, to avoid the heinous mandates some states have - and THEN you will see cheaper individual plan options appear. That's the key to the whole ball of wax!

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2010 12:11 PM (SB0V2)

24 This is why you just do a tax rebate for purchasing health plans if you're not covered by your employer.  And then give an option for a slightly higher rebate if you have a pre-existing condition and need to suddenly purchase insurance for the first time. 

That both provides incentive to always have insurance, and is just fair enough to augment some of the costs to individuals with pre-existing conditions.  It's compulsory without being mandatory.

Posted by: Mippilis at November 30, 2010 12:12 PM (VWhPF)

25 I don't see why anyone isn't talking about the current position on pre-existing conditions.  If you have nine months of creditable coverage, you're pre-existing conditions are waived.  This stops the insurance hopping and allows companies to collect enough premiums to offset the expense.  For some reason, everyone has the opinion that those with pre-existing conditions cannot obtain insurance.

Posted by: CMouse at November 30, 2010 12:12 PM (O7DCr)

26

It's amazing to me that anyone who understands business could be for accetance with pre existing conditions.  At that point by definition it's not insurance it's just a reduced payment plan for medical bills. 

I don't think that there is anyway to keep people from gaming a healthcare system like this though.

Posted by: Roadking at November 30, 2010 12:12 PM (uqiMa)

27 If we fired those assholes, we can fire these assholes.

Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2010 12:13 PM (bdqou)

28 Tarpon, Okay, thanks, but I assumed Politco had it wrong, so I reported it right -- that is, I said that Cantor would put in the most popular bits of ObamaCare into their own replacement bill. Which isn't the same thing as keeping ObamaCare. I thought Politico was deliberately distorting from the get-go. I assumed it. So I wrote about the part I thought was true.

Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 12:13 PM (nj1bB)

29
First of all, nothing even remotely like this reform needed to be done.

Second, let's say for argument's sake that we have 30 million uninsured citizens in the United States. It would make sense to scrap this trillion-dollar health care sector killing bill and just give health insurance to the 30 million indigents.

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:14 PM (uFokq)

30 Might want to do something about the trial lawyer's lotto fund. One case shouldn't result in a lawyer, John Edwards, being set for life.

Posted by: kansas at November 30, 2010 12:14 PM (mka2b)

31 This part:

"We too don't want to accept any insurance company's denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have pre-existing condition," Cantor said, addressing a young woman in the audience who noted that she had a pre-existing health condition.

is a direct contradiction to this part:

"And likewise we want to make sure that someone of your age has the ability to access affordable care, whether it's under your parents plan or elsewhere," Cantor added.

It's rather like we want you to be able to have your insurance cake and eat it too.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 30, 2010 12:14 PM (xxgag)

32 One $1 million cancer claim for a small business under 100 employees will force that company to drop it's insurance.

Dominoes.

Welcome to socialism folks.

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:14 PM (+sBB4)

33 The problem, Ace, if if they'll cave on this, even a little, then they'll cave on anything and everything.  Repeal of ObamaCare was one of the most animating catalysts of the TEA Party movement, and influenced a lot of Independents to switch back earlier this month.  It is an absolute PR disaster for Republicans to even hint that they are willing to do anything other than fully repeal the Act and start completely over.

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2010 12:15 PM (SwjAj)

34 11 >>> Two of the most expensive provisions and they keep them the kids till 26 is expensive? I wouldn't have figured that. Okay, let me back off from that. The pre-existing condition provision is one of the most expensive, but I don't know how bad the "keep the kids on till 26" provision is. Sorry.

Posted by: joncelli© at November 30, 2010 12:15 PM (RD7QR)

35 Every involvement of government in medical care delivery is simply there to unbalance the market, and therefore makes it more expensive.

Posted by: nickless© at November 30, 2010 12:15 PM (MMC8r)

36

The only way to fix healthcare in a sustainable method over the long haul is to fix what makes it expensive in the first place- goverment distortion via medicaide and medicare drawing out resources and paying pennies on the dollar to hospitals and doctors for sservices, costs which are passed on to private paying consumers and insurance.

Its a stealth tax on those who can pay. I agree with Ace on the whole... the broad middle doesn't want drastic change one way or another. We must learn from the leftists: if we want to win, we must use subterfuge.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2010 12:15 PM (NCw5u)

37 personal mandate or vouchers. only two ways: carrot or stick. a lower cost way would be to have vouchers go into an HSA, from which a person could buy insurance. set it at something like the cost of catastrophic, plus $2k for misc. and to cover the deductible. that's what? 5k per person? if that? alot cheaper than the 10-12 for medicaid/medicare

Posted by: A.G. at November 30, 2010 12:15 PM (oAVyq)

38

I'll wait a day on this.  The Hill got it wrong for sure.  As to what the GOP actually plans...I'll wait, especially since they aren't taking office for more than a month and because the Dems are ramming crap through the lame-duck session.

Plus, it doesn't matter what the GOP does.  Obama will veto it.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 12:16 PM (BvBKY)

39 The solution to pre-existing condition is to make coverage pools transferable or de-link them from employers/jobs.  The big problem here is that you play nice, pay through the nose for insurance for years through one employer, but then temporarily change jobs, or lose your job (6 to 18 months or so these days).  Then when you get a new job, the new coverage treats you like you were gaming the system.

If coverage were instead just pools of people not tied to employer, then it would transfer all along and as long you weren't gaming the system, you'd never get into a pre-existing condition situation.  Even the Wyden bill knew that much. 

Of course, the only reason coverage is linked to jobs is - wait for it - government policy.  In this case, taxes and benefits laws.  That can be fixed.  No socialization or mandates needed.

Posted by: Vern at November 30, 2010 12:17 PM (ijVRQ)

40 The cool off period between when Cantor said it and Ace put it up has made me no less angry with Cantor, he's dead to me.  Today I pledge $100 to the first person to challenge him in the primary.

Posted by: John Galt at November 30, 2010 12:18 PM (F/4zf)

41
I'd give my left nut for a Republican to go on the floor and say:

"You know what part of the HCR we should definitely keep? The part that creates the four-hundred thousand new jobs, some of them immediately, promised by Nancy Pelosi."


Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:18 PM (uFokq)

42 Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 05:10 PM (uFokq)

Because we like CAT scans.

Health care is just more expensive now- it really is.  We could drop it some, but there are a lot of VERY expensive procedures out there and they can be necessary more often than you'd think (I've got migraines, I'm supposed to get MRIs every 5 years).

Blindside gets it right: The Federal Government has no business interfering with my health care choices at all.  None.  Period.  Full stop.

The correct "alternative" for the congressional Republicans to suggest is- do away with artificial limits on competition (allow purchasing plans across state lines), do away with any government mandated coverage, and implement tort reform (cap on "punitive damages" and implement "loser pays.").  Then say: Okay, States, its up to you.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 12:20 PM (8y9MW)

43 The FEDERAL government should NOT be involved in healthcare other than making certain the states aren't raising barriers to health care providers and insurance companies in other states.

Amen.

Posted by: Skookumchuk at November 30, 2010 12:20 PM (btzPD)

44 Why do 98% of adults under 26 even need health insurance? A $100.00 a year catastrophic policy covering anything over $100,000.00 should be fine for most people under 35. Pay for the rest of it yourself.

Posted by: lowandslow at November 30, 2010 12:21 PM (rplS1)

45

The key to bringing control of costs is to first sever the employer-insurance connection. If people directly pay thier own premiums based on lifestyle, people will opt for more reasonable treatment and have more incentive for better lifestyle choices.

Subterfuge my friends.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2010 12:21 PM (NCw5u)

46

Please allow me to say bull shit on Cantor's suggestion, I along with many others participated in a house republican conference call back in April with Messrs. Cantor and Roskam while they were in Chicago making the rounds. And I guess, we've come a long way baby lo these past 7 months to hear this crap being enunciated by Cantor. 

Mr. Cantor, Obamacare was the product of unilateral partisanship that was based on fraudulent numbers provided to the CBO.  And ultimately passed into law by removing longstanding senate rules.

The function of insurance is to rate risk and spread risk with the understanding the risk is fortuitous in nature i.e. not in the process of happening. Mandating insurers provide pre-existing condition, politically tempting as it is, will wreak havoc inside the insurance market and will cause insurers to ultimately reduce coverage and raise premium across the board and many will close up shop. 

Obamacare needs to be repealed entirely and a new approach to preexisting conditions such as a pool for those facing severe medical issues should then be addressed.  

Don't continue to disappoint us Mr. Cantor.

The tea party isn't going away and only plays favorites to those who understand business, fiscal restraint and the constitution. 

Posted by: journolist at November 30, 2010 12:22 PM (LwLqV)

47 I'll just note my belief that the odds of defeating ObamaCare politically will go up significantly if there's some kind of more-attractive but less-intrusive replacement on the horizon.

How's about a free market for medical services?  Like ...

1. Get the federal government out of the WWII-era-price-and-wage controls business of subsidizing medical insurance by disproportionately taxing salaries but not premiums; including the zillion dollars a year that unions and governments pay for their employees' gold-plated non-market-reality plans. Lots of people would still buy medical insurance, but more for catastrophic events, like cancer and car accidents.

2. Get the government out of the business of price controls for medical goods and services (which it does through Medicare -- you can't charge different rates to non-Medicare patients, which means Medicare effectively fixes national prices).  Only in this fucked-up system do you see $1,800 bills for an 8-second sonogram.

3. Repeal about a zillion other union-style regulations about who can do what and where, which means you need to have 18 years of education to lance a boil.

Then, prices drop, supply increases, and quality improves. 

Or, you know, we could try to find a way to replicate the success of a free market through a Byzantine maze of regulations and price controls.  It's worked so well every other time we've tried.

Posted by: Phinn at November 30, 2010 12:22 PM (hSSfI)

48 I'm with AmishDude -- waaayyyy too early in the game to go ballistic; let's wait and see wait happens.

Posted by: billygoat at November 30, 2010 12:22 PM (5qJM5)

49
I understand technology and R&D is costly, Allen, but on the other hand, why isn't technology making things cheaper in the health care sector the same way televisions are better and less expensive now than they were in 60's?

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:22 PM (uFokq)

50
I mean, cat scan machines should be dirt cheap by now.

Heck, we should all own mini cat scan machines in our own homes!

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:23 PM (uFokq)

51

I seriously doubt there's any way to fix the pre-existing condition problem without a mandate. That's the crux of the old bad bill.

What Cantor may be referring to is prohibiting insurors from declining to renew someone with an existing condition. This does happen. Plus, if you go to COBRA and then get sick, you cannot get insurance again when you come off COBRA. That ain't right, it is relatively cheap to fix and it will be immensely popular because everybody knows somebody who got sick and ran into all kinds of insurance problems.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (rplL3)

52

Lets worry about getting numbers first. Nothing is going to happen with Obama and a 'D' Senate. A smal majority in the Senate means more compromise, a bigger majority means less.

People will jump on Cantor, but he explicitly stated - REPEAL. Whenever some one talks about the replacement, some jump to conclusions.

As if reprealing ObamaCare and returning to the status quo circa 2008 is an option. Its not. The electorate wants some reform; they just dont want Obama's radical reform.We need a palatable replacement option.

My problem is what they want to keep. You can't cover pre-existing conditions with a mandate or taxes. Its too expensive. And keeping 'kids" on parents plan is a grotesques display of the sissification of America. Get the "kids" out of mommies' basements.

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (3DIBw)

53 I see we conservatives have work to do -- educating people to the point where they understand the level of suffering that will ensue if the government takes charge of our healthcare.

Posted by: Mindy at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (8Ouoo)

54 From a strictly political POV, it might seem wise to include popular bits from OCare, but I think it is more important to show the people that you are serious about knocking this thing in the dirt and stepping on its face. 

I think there is a bit of COD redux here, and the GOP better get it right.  That is, don't tell the other side what parts are good yet.  Just kill it outright.  Otherwise, you are like Churchill's lady friend, and just negotiating about price. 

IOW, go Russian on this particular Assange.

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (8lSIO)

55 I think the solution is a conservative Universal Health Care Coverage plan.  But make it for catastrophic coverage only, with 5-10000$ deductibles.  Have the states bid it out state by state to private insurance carriers, then allow and encourage both Health Savings Accounts, or supplemental policies.  I think we can all agree that every body needs, and basically already has a catestophic policy either via market or service mandates, so that won't cost society any more.  We do need to figure out the mechanism to reallocate the money.

The benefit for real cost savings is if we can get widespread Health Savings accounts, where people have and incentive to seek out lower costs for their health care services.  And of course there shouldn't be any barriers to people buying supplemental policies if they don't want an HSA, or going naked and just paying out of pocket amounts below the fairly high deductibles.

Posted by: Kazinski at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (HPhbp)

56 45. LowAndSlow - in PA I could not actually find affordable catastrophic individual insurance. This is due to state laws and mandates! get rid of THAT CRAP, actually you do that just by allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines - seriously, it will snowball and your problem is SOLVED. I'm an artist - at the time single - there was no option that didn't suck at the time (except being on my parents plan). Okay not everyone should be an artist, but the whole health-care-thru-work thing sucks balls for lots of people, not just artists.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (SB0V2)

57 "pre-existing conditions" = Trojan Horse Socialized medicine

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (+sBB4)

58 You could make people pay very high premiums indeed if they do this, penalizing the game-the-system types, but in the end, you can't penalize them enough to make this an unattractive proposition.

"You"—the government, you mean, which is not us—have no way even to determine who they are. (Just think about it for a minute.) Neither do insurance companies, but at least we could formerly choose not to do business with them, if we thought they were offering a shit deal. (Formerly. Because how will "you" determine who the game-the-system types are, so you can fuck 'em up good? Right. You'll target people who've avoided do business with the insurance industry, for whatever reason. And everyone knows it.)

Listen. The point of Obamacare, especially its "popular provisions," is to make shit so bad that single payer is better. And it's succeeded—already, day one, book it, finito, done. The GOP will not, ever, and never was going to, stop it. So just come out for nationalizing the whole deal. You're not a libertarian, so you're gonna. Just get it over with.

Posted by: oblig. at November 30, 2010 12:24 PM (x7Ao8)

59

but on the other hand, why isn't technology making things cheaper in the health care sector the same way televisions are better and less expensive now than they were in 60's?

Simple.  You pay for your TV yourself.

If you had "dinner insurance," it'd be surf and turf every night.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 12:25 PM (BvBKY)

60 27 If we fired those assholes, we can fire these assholes.

Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2010 05:13 PM (bdqou)

I'm running out of years waiting for all the assholes to be fired. Pick up the pace people.

Posted by: dogfish at November 30, 2010 12:25 PM (IqdLq)

61 27 If we fired those assholes, we can fire these assholes.

Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2010 05:13 PM (bdqou)

...but I do like these sentiments!

Posted by: billygoat at November 30, 2010 12:25 PM (5qJM5)

62 I should also point out that this same government's approach to lowering medical costs with Medicare is to refuse to pay full price, thereby shifting the cost burden to non-medicare patients who ARE paying (that's us suckers).

Mandating care for people who will never pay is just the next magnitude of the same insane policy.

The government that is tellign us how they will save our system is the one that's fouled it up in the first place.

Posted by: nickless© at November 30, 2010 12:25 PM (MMC8r)

63 If there were a cap of pre-existing condition benefits, along with higher premiums, perhaps it could work. I don't have the numbers at my disposal to prove it, but I think it passes the smell test.

Then maybe something could be worked out to roll these folks into a different plan after a period of time.

It ain't the "everyone's entitled" freebee that they want in a Libtard Utopia, but it provides an option.

The simple fact is that personal choice and personal accountability trump entitlement.

I haven't had insurance in years. If I need to go to a doctor, I pay for it or I don't go. Whatever the end result, it's purely my choice. In lean times, my money would have been wasted on insurance, since I also haven't been to a doctor in as long as I can remember. Cash instead goes toward food, housing, or whatever else is more important during those times. I am very happy about that, since during bad times, it's not as if my mandatory health insurance payment would have kept a roof over my head or food in my stomach. Alas, under the new law, all things being equal, I would have paid for stuff I didn't need and died because I couldn't afford what I did ( For everyone who is not a single, white, male; this would mean that food and housing entitlements go through the roof).

In better times, I plunk "rainy day" money aside that can be used for what I need, be it health care or whatever else. Since Obama's been in office, that generally means setting aside enough cash to offset the spike in food, gas, and everything else... and, as it turns out, my time out of work, thanks to his spectacular "stimulizing".

Posted by: Damiano at November 30, 2010 12:25 PM (PA722)

64 Forcing insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions is like forcing home insurance companies to sell fire insurance to burning houses. It's wrong and will not work, and at its core it is redistribution of wealth.

Posted by: Nick at November 30, 2010 12:25 PM (S2Q0B)

65
I think the solution is a conservative Universal Health Care Coverage plan. 

Rule #1: Never give the socialists a foot in the door.

btw, no one ever follows Rule #1. To wit: Social Security.

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:26 PM (uFokq)

66 But really, are these things popular popular? If we can't count on the GOP to at least understand the evils of legislating free lunches then the empire is lost. How about polling it like this "do you support this provision of Obamacare knowing that it will cause your premiums to skyrocket so you can take care of people too lazy to get insurance?" Isn't the preexisting condition mandate the whole point, the backdoor by which private industry can't compete with government single payer? What about the waivers? Why aren't we hammering the waivers?

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 12:27 PM (QxSug)

67 Preexisting condition coverage is not a zero/one thing. Many people (including me) are troubled, for instance, by the following: My children are currently on my health plan. Under the pre-Obama care system, if one of them were to develop a condition before they reached 18, they might be unable to buy insurance when they became no longer eligible to be under my policy. And I have done everything "right". I never tried to game the system by having me or them go uninsured. So one way to get around this without bankrupting insurance companies would be to require allowing kids to stay on their parent's policy to some age (say 22 but the exact age is probably not important) and have a requirement that insurance companies can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions up to age 22 and can't drop you or raise your rates above that of your pool if you develop a condition after that. BUT, if you are OVER age 22 and have a preexisting condition, then the insurance company can do whatever it wants: deny coverage or charge a huge amount for it. This would create a big incentive to not free ride by not buying insurance until you got sick, at least after the age of 26 (and health costs for people under 26 I don't think are that large). Overall, conservatives do need to understand there were big problems with pre Obamacare health insurance. Obamacare is worse, but we need to offer improvements to what we had before. Laws like an insurance company (even if company offered) can't drop you or charge you more than they otherwise would if you get sick would help. So would a requirement that you get to keep your insurance (if you are willing to pay the pooled cost) even if you switch jobs. Under preObamacare, if you or your spouse gets a serious long-term illness, you basically can't quit your job. Conservatives need to address this too.

Posted by: waiting at November 30, 2010 12:27 PM (dX5s2)

68 All employer- provided benefits have their origin in an idea some company asshole had about 60 years ago to lower the total cost of employment. At one time it was cheaper to provide cheap bennies (health and retirement) than to simply PAY THE FUCKING EMPLOYEE WHAT HE WAS WORTH. Thus we find another excellent example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The collapse of any system based on youth and health was inevitable. De-linking of employment and insurance (the car insurance model) is critical to restoring economic health. I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Ex- Republican genius at November 30, 2010 12:27 PM (9htMr)

69 There's no way to make "no preexisting conditions" work without a personal mandate. I mean - there just ain't. We're boned worse than a pooch with a hobo. Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2010 05:04 PM (tJjm/) I suppose you could have a sliding scale for premium costs. If you sign up when your old and sick, your premium would be higher than if you had been covered since you were young?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 12:28 PM (0GFWk)

70 >>Of course, the only reason coverage is linked to jobs is - wait for it - government policy. In this case, taxes and benefits laws. That can be fixed. No socialization or mandates needed. yeah this is a tricky thing. I don't really understand your proposal before this part.

Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 12:28 PM (nj1bB)

71

People don't blow a gasket and fall for the spin. The GOP simply can not work ONLY on repealing Obamacare, they have to simultaneously have something to replace it with. Think repeal and replace happening at the same time.

I think most people understand that there are some good commonsense reforms needed. It is not big deal that certain aspects of Obamacare are used in the new bill. In fact that may help sell it in the Senate and would be a small price to pay to repeal Obamacare.

Posted by: exceller at November 30, 2010 12:28 PM (jx2Td)

72 OT: Harvard scientists say they have for the first time partially reversed age-related degeneration in mice, resulting in new growth of the brain and testes

New nuts?

Does this mean COD was right?

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:28 PM (+sBB4)

73 Welfare by any other name.

Posted by: Rush at November 30, 2010 12:29 PM (EL+OC)

74 >>>. At one time it was cheaper to provide cheap bennies (health and retirement) than to simply PAY THE FUCKING EMPLOYEE WHAT HE WAS WORTH well it took off due to ww2 wage controls, from which benefits were exempted, so offering health and life insurance became legal means to pay people above the legal salary cap.

Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 12:30 PM (nj1bB)

75 The GOP needs to forget about "repeal and replace".  The preferred mantra is "repeal and repeal some more".

Posted by: John Galt at November 30, 2010 12:30 PM (F/4zf)

76 The other part is also popular -- no barring coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but it's also extremely costly and without any good way to implement it. The problem is, of course, that you can't have free riders skipping insurance all their lives until the day they're diagnosed with a costly illness, then signing up and paying what healthy people pay.

There is a way around the free rider problem. Make the law that insurers must accept those with preexisting conditions if (and only if) they have been insured for the past year. This gets around the people locked into a job because their kid has cancer and so they can't change jobs because that means changing insurance when no new company would take them. As long as you keep your insurance up, they have to take you. There will certainly be some policies that the insurance companies would have to write that they would otherwise not have to, but it would also act as an additional motivator for healthy people to make sure their policies don't lapse, so it could end up being a net wash for the insurance companies.

But, I think it is a huge mistake for those who want to repeal ObamaCare to think they have to come up with a replacement first. That will result in a big fight about what the replacement should be, with lots of them using what comes out as an excuse to not to repeal because the replacement isn't the right one.

Repeal first, then have the debate about what comes next.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at November 30, 2010 12:31 PM (DsU01)

77 Just the same, but smaller!

Posted by: GOP, ca. 2006 at November 30, 2010 12:31 PM (5Rurq)

78 Posted by: joncelli© at November 30, 2010 05:15 PM (RD7QR)

Nope, you were right: it's just that it's not necessarily expensive to insurance companies.

It works like this: when a business obtains group insurance, they pay a fee (usually either a flat fee or a percentage of claims paid) just to have the plan.  Then there is the annual premium for each and every participant (employee or dependent) on the plan.  Most companies pass some or all of that second cost on to the employees via Health Plan payroll deductions.

That's if they're "fully insured" which means that the insurance works the way you think it does: money goes to the insurance company who pays the claims.

If they're "fully funded" then there's a (somewhat) smaller fee to have the plan, and the business has to put a deposit on expected claims for the year.  At the end of the year, if claims have exceeded that amount, the insurance company demands payment.  Usually (but not always) if the deposit exceeded claims paid, the money reverts to the business.  The premiums work the same- they just go to defray monthly operating costs and pay claims directly. 

Most large companies are "fully funded," while most small-to-medium companies are "fully insured."  If you can afford the up-front costs of fully funding, it's usually cheaper in the long run.

If you take all those people who (here in Texas) would have been off the plan at 24 and keep them on two more years, both of those amounts go up.  So it becomes more expensive for both the business and the employee to carry insurance at all.

To a small company, this could easily force them to greatly reduce benefits or drop the plan all together.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 12:31 PM (8y9MW)

79 new growth of the brain and testes

Novonads would be a good brand name for them.

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2010 12:31 PM (8lSIO)

80 keep-kids-on-your-insurance-'till-they're-26 provision, but I think it's too popular to get rid of

Is it? Is there polling on this?

Not doubting you here. I guess I wouldn't be surprised that most Americans further support the infantilization of their grown-assed kids. It's been going on for at least 30 years, so why not a little more, yeah?

Me, I say fucking take some of that beer money and a few bucks out of your Xbox video game fund and buy your own fucking insurance.

We've got 18 yr olds who give their lives for this country. Asking a 26 yr old to sack up and buy his own goddamned insurance isn't too much to ask, in my opinion.

But whatever. I'm outside the mainstream on most things.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 12:31 PM (HzhBE)

81
Nothing has been enacted yet, right?

If so, why is it so difficult to scrap everything?


Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:32 PM (uFokq)

82 That will result in a big fight about what the replacement should be, with lots of them using what comes out as an excuse to not to repeal because the replacement isn't the right one.

Repeal first, then have the debate about what comes next.

Exactly.  Otherwise, everyone will know you don't mean business. 

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2010 12:32 PM (8lSIO)

83 Cantor may have been misquoted, but I can tell you this--he's got accomodationist written all over him. This is not a fire-in-the-gut conservative; this is a guy who'll do deals. I'm not from his district, but I know people who are, and they're falling out of like with the guy. It's not often you get to see a RINO's birth; watch closely.

Posted by: railwriter at November 30, 2010 12:33 PM (WovsE)

84 CAT Scans are now consumer electronics? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLlRTkU3o1w

Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 12:33 PM (nj1bB)

85 But, I think it is a huge mistake for those who want to repeal ObamaCare to think they have to come up with a replacement first. That will result in a big fight about what the replacement should be

Random morons are smarter than Republican congressmen.  Random Moron 2012.

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:35 PM (+sBB4)

86 I believe we need cheerleader pics for these Obama Care threads to keep the morons on topic.

Posted by: sTevo at November 30, 2010 12:35 PM (VMcEw)

87 Conservatives have seized, kind of oddly, on ObamaCare's keep-kids-on-your-insurance-'till-they're-26 provision, but I think it's too popular to get rid of, and trying to get rid of it will threaten the more important goal of getting rid of socialized medicine.

This would be the first thing I'd toss under the bus, popular or not. Too many of the little darlings have spent far too much time in the socialist cocoon as it is without granting them another five years' grace at mummy and daddy's expense. The pre-election ad with a cohort of them standing there nekkid and vowing that they'll fight, fight, fight to keep this newly found right, right, right cinched the "it's got to go" argument for me.

Hipsters: even hobos spit upon them.

Posted by: ya2daup at November 30, 2010 12:36 PM (FcKXR)

88 Cheerleaders must be covered under any GOP proposal

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:37 PM (+sBB4)

89 Obamacare is the kind of evil that needs to be repealed twice to make sure.

Posted by: John Galt at November 30, 2010 12:37 PM (F/4zf)

90

I was corporate counsel for MetLife and Liberty Mutual. Lets repeal, replace then repeal and replace then repeal and replace.

All this shit makes guys like me marketable.

 

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 12:38 PM (3DIBw)

91 I suppose you could have a sliding scale for premium costs. If you sign up when your old and sick, your premium would be higher than if you had been covered since you were young?

Posted by: nevergiveup at November 30, 2010 05:28 PM (0GFWk)


Pretending, for the moment, that forcing insurers to take people with pre-existing conditions isn't stealing from someone to give to someone else....

What model would you base your sliding scale on?

The problem with the pre-existing condition clause is there IS no model because all hypothetical models end up in bankruptcy. Every insurer under the sun knows this is a recipe for shuttering their doors.

If I know someone has to cover me, what incentive do I have to maintain insurance. I can wait until I get sick, get insurance, get the problem fixed, and then dump the insurance again.

Our healthcare system is f'd up PRECISELY because of the government. More 'government' isn't going to fix it.

Posted by: blindside at November 30, 2010 12:38 PM (x7g7t)

92
you laugh, but someday CAT scan machines will be as small and affordable as hand-held scanners.

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:38 PM (uFokq)

93 but on the other hand, why isn't technology making things cheaper in the health care sector the same way televisions are better and less expensive now than they were in 60's?

While I also agree with AmishDude's response, I would argue that this is an false comparison.

TVs are not cheaper because of technology- they are cheaper because of demand. If no one was buying flat screens, they'd be going up in price and eventually cease to exist.

Implementing technology can make things more efficient, but without increasing demand, it does nothing to make anything cheaper. Think about it- what is cheaper: a pencil and paper or a computer and software? If I have one customer, I am sticking with the pencil and paper because it is both exponentially cheaper AND more efficient. If I have a million customers, a computer and software allows me to do the same thing more efficiently and the increased cost is offset by volume.

Everyone sells technology by equating increased efficiency with decreased cost. That is false. Yes, you can get a return on investment, but it is still an investment. Further, in order to sustain the ROI, costs need to be either finite or a fixed percentage to be sustainable. Coming from someone who has worked on large scale government technology implementations, I can assure you that this is almost never the case. They simply open a can of worms with a reasonably well planned project, then are married to long term costs of maintaining it, upgrading it, etc.

Posted by: Damiano at November 30, 2010 12:39 PM (PA722)

94 The real problem, morons, is all our solutions devolve power away from government and make a more responsible populace.

The Democrats are about redistribution and giveaways, and government dependence (and a lot of Republicans are, too, when you get right down to it).

Posted by: nickless© at November 30, 2010 12:40 PM (MMC8r)

95

Personally, I don't give a shit what the Republicans say during the run-up to taking the congressional reigns next year. I'm waiting to see what they actually do. No sense in getting lathered up over some media report this far out.

Posted by: Lurk Ness Monster at November 30, 2010 12:40 PM (munpK)

96 Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 05:22 PM (uFokq)

I really don't have an answer to that.  I know that there are a limited number of manufacturers (unlike with computers or TVs) and they're constantly coming out with "the new model" or what-have-you, but I honestly can't answer that question.

Posted by: waiting at November 30, 2010 05:27 PM (dX5s2)

If you get group coverage, you can't be denied at all.  At worst there will be a "pre-existing waiting period" which says "if you didn't have coverage for the last 12 (to 18, potentially) months and/or you had a gap between that prior coverage and the new of more than 63 days, any condition for which you were seen prior to your current plan will be considered Pre-Exisiting and not be eligible for payment for 12 months (pro-rated for the number of months in the last 12 you had insurance)"

That's from HIPAA back in '96.

So, the answer for people concerned about "pre-existing conditions" is: get a job that provides group health coverage.  Almost every employer with 20+ employees does that now, btw.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 12:40 PM (8y9MW)

97 @ 49, billygoat (& AmishDude) - sorry.  Wrong!  This is trial ballon by Cantor.  Expect many many many of these. These fucking dipshits thing the TPers are going away and they're testing the air to see if they have.  

WE HAVEN'T.  If we don't climb down their throats the second they spew this bullshit they'll start drifting into RINO land.  WE WILL NOT GIVE ONE SINGLE INCH.

PERIOD !!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at November 30, 2010 12:41 PM (jbCcb)

98 Repeal and replace congress

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:42 PM (+sBB4)

99
More 'government' isn't going to fix it.

Yeah, it's kinda like trying to help a person who has just been stabbed by stabbing them some more.

Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:42 PM (uFokq)

100

I do not understand why reform doesn't mean "get the government out of healthcare" and tort reform.

Also, I thought that the pre-existing condition thing usually meant if you were pre-existing without having had insurance coverage.  As far as I have known, insurance companies will take you if you have a pre-existing condition as long as you were covered by another company. 

Posted by: soulpile is... expendable at November 30, 2010 12:42 PM (gH+Hj)

101 1 There's no way to make "no preexisting conditions" work without a personal mandate. I mean - there just ain't.

Sure there is.  Look, insurance is just transference of risk.  I am healthy now, but I pay a health insurance premium in the event that I might be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.  I pay a small bill now to hedge against the risk of paying a much larger bill tomorrow.  If I don't get health insurance, I'm not transferring risk - I'm assuming all the risk myself.  So if I don't have health insurance and I get diagnosed with cancer, and the law says the insurance company must still write a policy for me, then my policy ought to be nothing more than the full, unhedged, cost of the cancer treatment.  Because there is no risk to transfer.  That is how "no preexisting conditions" work without a personal mandate - i.e., it is exactly the same as having no insurance at all. 

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2010 12:42 PM (i7Wd9)

102 The Duddy and Mummy's-insurance-until age 26-thing is a way for Ocommies to buy the slacker basement-dweller vote. Simple as that.

The only way to lower health care costs is to let the free market duke it out.




Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2010 12:42 PM (bdqou)

103 Cantor's a Joooooooo

Posted by: Barbarian at November 30, 2010 12:43 PM (EL+OC)

104 Cantor may have been misquoted, but I can tell you this--he's got accomodationist written all over him. This is not a fire-in-the-gut conservative; this is a guy who'll do deals.

His interview with Laura Ingraham on Obamacare was very ominous.

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at November 30, 2010 12:43 PM (XsNxM)

105

outlaw all health insurance except catastrophic with a high deductible.

allow it to be sold across state lines.

 

Posted by: 8 at November 30, 2010 12:44 PM (jo7gO)

106
TVs are not cheaper because of technology...

Automated assembly lines and cheap labor and cheap parts haven't made tv's cheaper?


Posted by: Professor Soothsayer at November 30, 2010 12:44 PM (uFokq)

107 Repeal and replace congress

Posted by: John Galt at November 30, 2010 12:45 PM (F/4zf)

108 There's no way to make "no preexisting conditions" work without a personal mandate. I mean - there just ain't.

I'm hoping Cantor meant something like pre-existing conditions of newborn babies who suffer from congenital illnesses. Boehner also said Republicans would not like to deny coverage to such kids. (But how do those kids get on insurance plans now?)

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at November 30, 2010 12:47 PM (XsNxM)

109

Posted by: ace © at November 30, 2010 05:33 PM (nj1bB)

 

Are Bark Collars covered under the GOP plan?

Posted by: the Hobo at November 30, 2010 12:47 PM (8x4z4)

110 OT: Jeb Bush told Obama to “just chill” and take “a three-month vacation.”

Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 12:47 PM (+sBB4)

111 What, me argue? In terms of pre-existing conditions couldn't the insurance companies simply offer expensive options that don't cover current ailment or recurrences of it. For example, some waits until he's diagnosed with testicle cancer to find coverage. All he will be offered is expensive insurance that doesn't cover current cancer treatments and no coverage for future cancer. That way he's still covered if in the future he needs a bypass or something unrelated and the insurance industry isn't being wrecked for people trying to game the system. Sorry if this has already been suggested.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at November 30, 2010 12:47 PM (WZFkG)

112

Posted by: chemjeff at November 30, 2010 05:42 PM (i7Wd9)

The reason you need a mandate because the premiums collected will not cover the costs. People will not buy insurance, but just wait until they are diagnosed. There is simply not enough premiums coming in for expeditures.

Pre-existing conditions and mandates go hand in hand.

 

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 12:48 PM (3DIBw)

113 I don't know how you get around this -- you either have to force people to buy insurance, which is of course a no-go (and might in fact get ObamaCare struck down by the courts), or you... no idea.

Idea!


1. Make a tax deduction for personal health insurance, so that there is less financial advantage to having your employer choose and provide your plan.
Effect: Makes the market more stable people need not change coverage when they change employers.

2. When you have a voluntary coverage change (Including signing up for coverage when you had none) pre-existing conditions may be covered under the provisions of your old plan (pay for it yourself if you had no plan) for up to one year, at the insurance companies prerogative.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 30, 2010 12:48 PM (0q2P7)

114 Kinda OT, but an observation that I've always found telling...

In TX in the 70-90s there was a 7-11 on every corner selling gas.  In the 90s-early 2000s, the 7-11s were swapped out for a bank/check cashing place on every corner.  Why, because cashing illegal's checks and giving loans to everyone that couldn't afford it was lucrative.  Now, we have a taj majal hospital/care centers on every corner.  At least in my neck of the woods, the city corner is the harbinger of the industry with the bad mojo   ...and getting ready to screw me next.

Posted by: dogfish at November 30, 2010 12:48 PM (IqdLq)

115

outlaw all health insurance except catastrophic with a high deductible.

allow it to be sold across state lines.

 

Posted by: 8 at November 30, 2010 05:44 PM (jo7gO)

Why? If someone wants, and can afford, a platinum plan, then they should pay for it. Just like there are different levels of car insurance and deductibles.

Further, who decides what makes a 'high deductible'. I can't possible see how giving someone authority to determine what is 'high' will result in lobbying activities and other abuses.

No, the Federal government needs to be out of the business. The states should also be out of it as much as possible.

Posted by: blindside at November 30, 2010 12:49 PM (x7g7t)

116 Oops this should be:
Why? If someone wants, and can afford, a platinum plan, then they should be allowed to  pay for it. Just like there are different levels of car insurance and deductibles.

Posted by: blindside at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (x7g7t)

117

 OT: Jeb Bush told Obama to “just chill” and take “a three-month vacation.”

He should try a Hike on the Appalachian Trail. I find it most relaxing.

Posted by: Mark Sanford at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (8x4z4)

118 Automated assembly lines and cheap labor and cheap parts haven't made tv's cheaper?

No, skimping on quality largely has.  TVs from the 60s were generally built like tanks and it wasn't uncommon for them to run 20+ years with relatively minor maintenance.  Whereas a lot of Chinese sets from the early 2000s already have blown critical components and are useless scrap.

That said, the public decided to make that trade - they wanted to get a bigger/flatter screen for their money instead of paying the premium Zenith and RCA charged for their comparatively more bulletproof sets.  That's capitalism in the raw, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Posted by: Ian S. at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (p05LM)

119 Turn all the unemployed into doctors and nurses.

Complete your MD = a guaranteed job.

Flood the market with doctors. Make them as common as crabs.



Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (bdqou)

120 Both are extremely costly and causing companies to get rid of employee insurance, meaning we're heading for the single payer plan which means mandatory insurance. So, I will not vote or give any money to the republicans who support this crap.

Posted by: Moi at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (Ez4Ql)

121 The left is always comparing mandates to car insurance so I demand that my new car insurance company pay for my preexisting dents and smashed bumper.

Posted by: Can't believe it's not bitter at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (pl9RU)

122 I don't have a problem with the 26 year old kid problem, mainly because a pool is a pool.  Assuming the parents are paying the premiums.  Won't happen in my house, but the $ value doesn't really bother me.

I don't know how you get around this

The free rider problem has 3 solutions that I can see, two probably considered "mean".

1. Don't require doctors to perform the service without payment.
2. Require the service, but have the IRS pay then collect the bill, over a lifetime if required with interest.
3. Keep the status quo (before obamacare) where we all pay thru higher medical bills.  Unfair, but still cheaper than obamacare and doesn't subject the rest of us to rationing.

I don't hold out hope that any of these a palatable to the public.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (JcRgg)

123

OT: Harvard scientists say they have for the first time partially reversed age-related degeneration in mice, resulting in new growth of the brain and testes

New nuts?

I want a new dick too.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 12:50 PM (HIlgc)

124 The problem with insuring pre-existing conditions is that although it seems like the "fair" thing to do, insuring something that has a 100% chance of happening really isn't insurance, it is charity.

When you force insurers to provide charity to pre-existing condition customers, they will just pass those costs along to their low risk, healthy customers, which isn't fair to them.

So this is a spot when the government can actually have a role. Set up a plan where patients with pre-existing conditions pay the same insurance as an otherwise healthy person of the same age, etc.  The government then co-insures for the pre-existing part as a part of Medicaid.

So, if a cancer patient goes to the doctor for the flu, this is covered by their normal insurance, if they have to have chemotherapy, the government co-insurance kicks in.

By doing this and only this, the savings to the government in NOT covering everyone for everything would far exceed the costs of covering pre-existing conditions.

The reality of the situation is that we simply cannot throw those with pre-existing conditions out in the street to die.  So since there is no "perfect" solution, we must find a solution that is both moral and practical.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 12:51 PM (Baf0e)

125 waiting at November 30, 2010 05:27 PM (dX5s2)

Simple solution- transferable policies. This goes along with the "across-state-lines" thing.

For your kids, rather than them being an addendum to your policy, they should be considered to have their own policy that you are paying for and receive a discount for since you have multiple policies. When they go off on their own or hit whatever age, they transfer to their own policy. I never understood the need for changing the age requirements. It's not as if the insurance company cares who writes the check. Sure, the premium will change... but it will be based on the risk of the individual once they become an adult and are responsible for themselves (aka, you no longer have a legal say about them going to a Dr., engaging in risky behavior, etc.).

The same for your adults/ spouses point. If someone has an insurance policy at work that they've been paying for for 20 years, they should be able to keep it, but they bear the full cost of the policy (unless their employer elects to do otherwise, without a union forcing them to).

Posted by: Damiano at November 30, 2010 12:52 PM (PA722)

126 I think Obama's proven that "popular" has nothing to do with it, as he shoved this bill through Congress and ignored the cooling saucer that is the Senate. No reads the bills, so why should we keep those bills. Also, this deal is from the GOP for the 111th Congress, not the 112th, right? Things will change when things change.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 12:52 PM (QxSug)

127 Asking a 26 yr old to sack up and buy his own goddamned insurance isn't too much to ask, in my opinion.

No foolin'.  At 26 I would have been mortified not to have a job - any job - and in a bad economy too.

Posted by: Skookumchuk at November 30, 2010 12:53 PM (btzPD)

128 How is keeping 'kids' on parents plans expensive to the insurance industry?. I would guess that insurers love collecting premiums from a group that uses the least amount of health care. Pre-existing conditions. Devil could be in the details --if you have(had) insurance from company X and you get laid off and company Z uses a different insurer is it right that you should be excluded? Its a prime reason people should buy insurance instead of it being a side benefit at work. Also if you have (say) diabetes, Insurer should be allowed to exclude the costs of treating THAT but you should be able to buy a policy that will cover your broken leg from skiing.

Posted by: PaleRider -haven't read all comments at November 30, 2010 12:54 PM (dkExz)

129 God help us....where are the men in Congress?

The passed this act of thievery in the dead of night, stealing our private healthcare and our earnings...and not a peep was made by the men in this country.

Save the Tea Party...who are too damn civilized for their own good.

And now the nancy-boys in the GOP leadership sound afraid of their shadow...after just winning an election?

Will the real Americans please stand up?

Posted by: pam at November 30, 2010 12:55 PM (uDwml)

130

New nuts?

Maybe there is hope for Obama...

Posted by: James Carville at November 30, 2010 12:55 PM (8x4z4)

131 @94 - they are cheaper because of demand.

I think you misunderstood the law of supply and demand...

Mostly TVs are cheaper because they're made in China and India and Taiwan and Mexico.  MRIs, CTs, etc. are more precise equipment and aren't (currently) manufactured on the same mass scale- so they're still often manufactured in highly industrialized countries (like the US).

I think it has more to do with why a computer today still costs about $1000 or so (to the average consumer)- you're getting way more for your money, but it's now the "minimum" required to do basic things.

Think about it, a computer built in 1997 might only cost $50 bucks now, but it wouldn't even be able to run the current version of Windows- and Microsoft isn't supporting Win 95 or 98 any more.  If I had to guess, I'd say that's what's really doing it with high-tech imaging technology: The manufacturers are not "supporting" the old equipment any more, so hospitals and imaging centers have to keep buying new stuff every couple of years.

And, to your example about HDTVs: if there were no demand, the price would be going down, not up.  The only reason it would go back up is if it only a few manufacturers were able to create them anymore.  Prices severely dropped when players like LG and others entered the market.  Lower prices (because of increased supply) then spiked demand.  Which induced other companies to enter the market, making prices go down even more.  It's nearly to the point I'm willing to buy one (I need at least a 32" TV soon, and they're finally down to a price I'm willing to pay).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 12:55 PM (8y9MW)

132

Of course there's a way to get the pre-existing condition situation in a sort of workable format; offer tax cuts to insurers who cover people with pre-existing and do away with the mandate forcing companies to cover. Also, allowing just catastrophic policies to be written would help.

If you give companies an incentive like tax cuts, they'll be able to ameliorate some of the risk involved with covering people with pre-existing conditions. If you allow insurers to write catastrophic only policies, they can scale that based on risk, pre-existing conditions, etc. It's not right, (and it ruins the system), to have people never pay in and then sign up and require a lot of expensive care; these people need to pay more, in fees or deductibles, or the whole system will crash. No freeloaders while the rest of us struggle. My husband's company announced last month that their great insurance - which was part of their vaunted benefits package and used to justify less than top salary - is going to change over the next two years, and we'll be paying more. I'm sure his salary won't be going up to compensate, either.

As for the damn cover the kids until they're 26... they're not kids, and they haven't been for 8 years and they're on the closer side to 30! That's just STUPID and wrong, I don't care if it's popular. They should lower that to 23/24. Most 'kids' are out of school then at 'real' jobs.

 

Posted by: Linlithgow at November 30, 2010 12:56 PM (Gim9y)

133

Will the real Americans please stand up?


 

Do I have to put my pants on?

...cause I'll do it, if I don't have to put pants on.

Posted by: garrett at November 30, 2010 12:57 PM (8x4z4)

134

The reality of the situation is that we simply cannot throw those with pre-existing conditions out in the street to die.  So since there is no "perfect" solution, we must find a solution that is both moral and practical.

 

Wage garnishments.  Church charities.  They need to pay something.  I'm just tired of being forced to give these people anything.  If it sounds hard, so be it. 

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 12:57 PM (HIlgc)

135 I hereby declare the formulation of The Dark Lord's First Law:

Every problem for which a government solution is proposed can, upon full and proper evaluation, be traced back to previous government action.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at November 30, 2010 12:57 PM (GBXon)

136 Allowing 26-year-olds to stay on their parents' plans gets low-risk uninsured people insured and actually paying into the system.  At least it isn't compulsory.

Posted by: nickless© at November 30, 2010 12:58 PM (MMC8r)

137 Hey you know what else this GOP could get on board with? Let's raise the minimum wage to $40 an hour and end poverty in America. what a bunch of tards

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 12:58 PM (QxSug)

138

Wage garnishments.  Church charities.  They need to pay something.  I'm just tired of being forced to give these people anything.  If it sounds hard, so be it. 

Which sounds great on the internets. Doesn't work in the suburbs, where, unfortunately, elections are won. And politicians are in the "winning election" business. Sorry,  if that sounds hard, so be it.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 12:59 PM (OWjjx)

139 Being a cancer patient myself, I can attest to the fact that being uninsured with this disease is a problem.  One of the biggest problems is the insanely high cost of treatment.

One chemotherapy session, which lasts about 4 hours and consists of a single nurse give you a single IV bag costs $20,000.  Yes, TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.  You can talk to me all day about R & D costs, etc - $20,000 for a bag of liquid is a fucking joke.  And then we read about the CEO of the Pharmaceutical Company making $300,000,000 a year.

Pharmaceutical Companies are not like other businesses.  If there is a certain drug you need to live and no one else has it, you MUST use the drug that company provides.  This gives them monopolistic powers.  It is wrong.  As much as I am against overt government regulation of businesses, pharmaceutical companies with monopoly power MUST have the pricing of their product regulated.

When a bag of chemotherapy medicine costs more than a like bag of melted gold, something is wrong.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 12:59 PM (Baf0e)

140

Politico wrote its article suggesting that parts of ObamaCare would be "retained,"

 

As long as the Republicans propose a Healthcare bill there are going to be parts that look like the ObamaCare monster.  Why? Because it's about health care, that's why.

Please, Republicans, don't propose a healthcare bill.  Just reform the torts that cover health care and for once use the interstate commerce clause to promote the good idea of insurance competition and carrying policies across state lines.

Posted by: Speller at November 30, 2010 12:59 PM (J74Py)

141 I'm suprised how many people assume portability is an issue. Covering kids and those with pre-existing conditions has little to do with gaps in coverage. 

Posted by: swamp yankee at November 30, 2010 01:00 PM (3DIBw)

142

Most 'kids' are out of school then at 'real' jobs.

 

Not in Obama's Amerika.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 01:01 PM (HIlgc)

143

Now, we have a taj majal hospital/care centers on every corner.  At least in my neck of the woods, the city corner is the harbinger of the industry with the bad mojo   ...and getting ready to screw me next.

Agreed, my doc's group just built a nice new office, too.

That's part of the problem, because we all have third-party providers paying for our doctor, there's no Wal-Mart for medical services (except the VA).

Nobody wants to hear it, but we're all paying Saks 5th Avenue prices and it's keeping prices up.  If you pay for yourself, you'll go to Wal-Mart, especially if it's something routine.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 01:01 PM (BvBKY)

144 "Wage garnishments.  Church charities.  They need to pay something.  I'm just tired of being forced to give these people anything.  If it sounds hard, so be it."

Let me put it another way.  I have never had use for the local fire department.  My home has never caught fire.  However, if your house caught fire through no fault of your own, would you have me deny you access to the fire department because I didn't want to have to pay for your problems through my taxes?

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:03 PM (Baf0e)

145

Pharmaceutical Companies are not like other businesses.  If there is a certain drug you need to live and no one else has it, you MUST use the drug that company provides.  This gives them monopolistic powers.  It is wrong.  As much as I am against overt government regulation of businesses, pharmaceutical companies with monopoly power MUST have the pricing of their product regulated.

When a bag of chemotherapy medicine costs more than a like bag of melted gold, something is wrong.

Sorry about your cancer, but I disagree with you on, well, pretty much everything.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 01:06 PM (HIlgc)

146

Let me put it another way.  I have never had use for the local fire department.  My home has never caught fire.  However, if your house caught fire through no fault of your own, would you have me deny you access to the fire department because I didn't want to have to pay for your problems through my taxes?

Not the most exact analogy, because I am assuming that my property taxes was covering some of the fire department expense. However, the underlying point has validity. Should tourist be denied police protection because they did not pay for the police...is probably the better analogy.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 30, 2010 01:06 PM (OWjjx)

147 One idea would be that those receiving government assistance for pre-existing conditions would be required to perform a certain amount of charity or community work pro-bono in exchange for the benefits they receive.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:06 PM (Baf0e)

148 Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 05:59 PM (Baf0e)

See "The Dark Lord's First Law."

The problem isn't even the pharmaceutical companies, it's with how patent law works for them.  I'm not sure of the specifics, but my understanding is that its fairly binary for them.

That is, if I invent Miracle Drug X, I can patent it and sell it for what I want.  Once that period is done, the patent goes away and anyone can make a generic version.  So, what I do is change the formulation slightly so I can re-patent it.  For some reason (I heard this years ago- it may be complete bunk) I DO NOT have the right to lease the license to create the drug- I have to make it myself or allow the formulation to go into the public domain.

So, instead of leasing my drug formulation to 4 different manufacturers, I have to make it myself.  If I'd been able to lease it, I could lease it to each of the 4 for (say) 1/3 my cost of R&D: They'd manufacture it cheaper, and I'd still see a fairly significant profit. (Okay, call it 1/2 instead of 1/3).  Since I have to manufacture it myself, I have to charge enough to cover: Manufacturing, Shipping, R&D, Marketing, and so on.  So the price goes way up.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 01:06 PM (8y9MW)

149 5-FU and leucovorin chemo drugs costs range from $300 to $800 for about an eight-week course of treatment.

Newer drugs, like oxaliplatin and irinotecan, can cost $10,000 or more for a course of treatment


Posted by: ingenus at November 30, 2010 01:07 PM (+sBB4)

150 "You could make people pay very high premiums indeed if they do this, penalizing the game-the-system types"

I think people are making this more difficult than it needs to be. It seems to me (and, by way of bona fides, I've been at this game for over 25 years) that the solution is to do what many carriers do now: limit or exclude pre-existing conditions for 12 months. Yes, yes, there needs to be some "filtering" (eg acne could be covered immediately, cancer not so much). And of course, you'd need to "price the risk," at least to some extent.

Take a page from how group cover works now: if you've been covered for the past 12+ months, no px exclusion (it's a sliding scale kind of deal). Applying that to the individual market will cause a little pain for the carriers [insert pic of world's smallest violin here], but it's eminently doable.

This solves (to as great an extent as possible) the problem of folks buying insurance in the ambulance, but still enables those with major px a shot at coverage. Is it perfect? Of course not, but what is?

Posted by: speedster1 at November 30, 2010 01:07 PM (yeM7r)

151 Leukemia treatment is this expensive because they know I am probably going to die in a month. They only have access to my wallet for a short time, so they have to strike while the iron is hot. - Dad, during chemo, May, 2000

Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2010 01:08 PM (bdqou)

152

If there is a certain drug you need to live and no one else has it, you MUST use the drug that company provides.  This gives them monopolistic powers.  It is wrong.

Only for a few years.  Then generic companies can make it with very low profit margins.  If they are the only company making it, then NOBODY was making it just a few years ago.

So, yes, it will cost $20K.  Is that worth it to you?

That's not an easy question.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2010 01:09 PM (BvBKY)

153 Cantor misquoted? The truth seems a distinction without a difference. Look, if he wants to keep "no pre-existing conditions" as a permanent feature, Cantor is telling insurance companies that they are simply not permitted to control costs. Period. In fact, he is telling every citizen to game the system. I can accept the idea that the nation is too far gone down the road of sweet empty promises and endless sugar to ever repeal Obastardcare. I rather think it is politically impossible. Therefore, the suicide of the nation proceeds apace, and may stop kidding ourselves and admit that socialized medicine is here to stay? Can we dispense with the fiction that anyone is going to repeal or otherwise undo socialized medicine? We have already admitted that repeal itself is impossible until 2012 and now it is impossible, end of story. Because it is, truly, politically popular, as is the Easter Bunny. You wanted to be Canada, America, and you will be. Have a nice time.

Posted by: George Orwell at November 30, 2010 01:09 PM (AZGON)

154 Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 06:03 PM (Baf0e)

No, but I also wouldn't have you pay higher home-owners insurance rates so his house can be rebuilt if he didn't have insurance.

Part of your (and his) taxes pay for the Fire Department- so he gets covered.

However, if he had the chance to "opt-out" of Fire Department coverage and did so, then I'd say let his house burn.  Wasn't there actually a story about that about a month or so ago? Some rural some-place?

Mallamut's "Police Protection" comes closer, but, again, public taxes pay for that.  Including Sales/Hotel/Entertainment taxes.  So, to continue our insurance analogy: that tourist has probably paid at least some amount of local taxes.  The likelihood of any given tourist needing police protection (in any active sense) is very low.  So insurance adjusters would call them "low risk."  All insurance is, at bottom, a gamble- and that would be a relatively good one to take.  So, sometimes the city would have to "pay out" by providing police protection for a tourist or visitor, but most of the time they're net "up" on tourism dollars.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 01:13 PM (8y9MW)

155 Let me put it another way.  I have never had use for the local fire department.  My home has never caught fire.  However, if your house caught fire through no fault of your own, would you have me deny you access to the fire department because I didn't want to have to pay for your problems through my taxes?

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 06:03 PM (Baf0e)

 

You're premise here is faulty.  The purpose of the government according to the US Constitution is to protect my property, so a tax for the fire department is appropriate.  But going with your premise:  Even if you could deny me the right to property protection, I still pay, out of my own pocket, homeowners insurance to rectify any damage done by the fire.

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 01:13 PM (HIlgc)

156 I would like to point out that, at some point, the desired impossible will intersect with the disastrous possible. Either we pull up our socks and get on with things before bankruptcy ensues, or we crash and burn.

It's time to grow up. Repeal Obamacare, every jot and tittle. Do not pretend that there is some bottomless money pit that can be dipped into to care for some unfortunates - that is the business of charity, not government.

Otherwise, I fear I'm going to have a Terry Pratchett moment.

Posted by: Dianna at November 30, 2010 01:14 PM (qrFCz)

157 NO government is not the answer.  TOO MUCH government is not the answer.  Government is like fertilizer (pun intended): not enough and the plant won't grow, too much and the fertilizer itself kills the plant.

The answer is somewhere in the middle.  The government needs to do what government does well and leave the rest to private industry.

The government is good at national defense, building and maintaining infrastructure and providing for those who can't help themselves.  Think of the government as the walls of the house that hold the country up and provide a safe shelter for us to prosper within.  Private enterprise is the guts of the house - the inner walls, the plumbing, the the electrical, the furniture, the appliances, etc...

"Render unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar and unto God what is due God."

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:14 PM (Baf0e)

158 It's time to grow up. Repeal Obamacare, every jot and tittle. Do not pretend that there is some bottomless money pit that can be dipped into to care for some unfortunates - that is the business of charity, not government. La la la la la we can't hear you

Posted by: Americans at November 30, 2010 01:16 PM (AZGON)

159 You know who this helps? Mitt Romney.

It flat kills America, but so long as them as are inclined to say "Neener neener" to the Democrats can do so on the way over the cliff, who really gives a shit?

Posted by: Ken at November 30, 2010 01:17 PM (fFh95)

160 If there is a certain drug you need to live and no one else has it, you MUST use the drug that company provides.  This gives them monopolistic powers.  It is wrong.  As much as I am against overt government regulation of businesses, pharmaceutical companies with monopoly power MUST have the pricing of their product regulated.

You mean the same pharmaceutical company that risked millions of its own dollars in the R&D that brought the drug to the market in the first place, right?

Posted by: GOP, ca. 2006 at November 30, 2010 01:18 PM (5Rurq)

161 Otherwise, I fear I'm going to have a Terry Pratchett moment.

Which particular Terry Pratchett moment would that be?

"...and providing for those who can't help themselves...."

No, Bill, it's not.  Private citizens and private charities are good at providing for those who can't help themselves.  The government (certainly above the local level) positively sucks at it.  See: War on Poverty.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 01:19 PM (8y9MW)

162 look, it sucks for the unprepared, but you're asking us to destroy a system that works for those hard luck cases...and those hardluck cases aren't exactly going to be better off if we turn our system into a death panel government system like the UK.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 30, 2010 01:20 PM (QxSug)

163 "You're premise here is faulty.  The purpose of the government according to the US Constitution is to protect my property, so a tax for the fire department is appropriate.  But going with your premise:  Even if you could deny me the right to property protection, I still pay, out of my own pocket, homeowners insurance to rectify any damage done by the fire."

Gawd you people have a serious case of literal-itis.  The point of my anology was NOT to discuss how you pay for fire insurance.  The point was to express that as a society, we have a certain responsibility to care about others even if there is nothing in it for us.  We simply cannot have the sick dying in the streets because we don't happen to be sick so we don't want to pay for it.

So, since we need to care for the sick, we have to find an EFFICIENT way to do it.  Obamacare was a carnival of waste and government bureaucracy.  It was designed to give power to the government, NOT to solve the problem.

The proper way to do this is in steps.  Start with something most people can agree on - like the pre-existing condition thing.  Implement that, not nationally but in a state that volunteers to be a test tube - off Broadway so to speak.  Give the state something in exchange - road grants, education, whatever.

Work out the kinks.  Show the American people it can work, then implement it nationally.  Then move onto the next thing and so on.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:21 PM (Baf0e)

164 La la la la la we can't hear you Posted by: Americans

Yeah, I know. That's why I'm about to go all Terry Pratchett.

*Smack!*

"Hi! I'm the inner babysitter!"

Posted by: Dianna at November 30, 2010 01:22 PM (qrFCz)

165 Heading for home, hoping for sanity. Good night!

Posted by: Dianna at November 30, 2010 01:23 PM (qrFCz)

166 The Saturn V rockets were expensive, too. Lots of R&D. Testing. Etc. Cancer medicine is tough to make, obviously. And if the company does it wrong they are out of business.

Thalidomide.

The human body is a fragile, soft, shitty little system. Takes a lot to keep it on the road. Like a shitty Vega or VW.

Nobody gets out alive, but our system worked pretty well. We didn't need CommieCare.


Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2010 01:25 PM (bdqou)

167 o, since we need to care for the sick, we have to find an EFFICIENT way to do it. Obamacare was a carnival of waste and government bureaucracy. It was designed to give power to the government, NOT to solve the problem. The proper way to do this is in steps. Start with something most people can agree on - like the pre-existing condition thing. Implement that, not nationally but in a state that volunteers to be a test tube - off Broadway so to speak. Give the state something in exchange - road grants, education, whatever. As is so often the case, the answer is not freedom but efficiency. We just need efficient government, and lots of it. It's the conservative thing to do, no? Liberal fascism is alive and well on the right. See "Goldberg, Jonah."

Posted by: George Orwell at November 30, 2010 01:27 PM (AZGON)

168 "You mean the same pharmaceutical company that risked millions of its own dollars in the R&D that brought the drug to the market in the first place, right?"

Yes, that company exactly. Why not charge $100,000 for a bag of chemicals?  Why not a million?  I would not deny the company a chance to make a profit, but since they have monopolistic powers I would deny them them ability to price their product in such a way to reap obscene profits.

We could say, ok, you can price this medicine so that you will recover your R & D costs over the first 5 years plus a set profit margin.

If Ford was the only company to make cars, would you enjoy paying $250,000 for a Ford Focus?  Why not?  They spent millions developing it?

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:27 PM (Baf0e)

169 Provide a tax-free federal IRA-style investment tool explicitly for medical. "Individual Medical Account."

Even if you slap the same ridiculously low limits on contributions, you've at least set up a mechanism to get a start on a solution. The actual cost to the government is nearly zero (the foregone taxes don't count, dammit.)


Posted by: Al at November 30, 2010 01:29 PM (MzQOZ)

170 @169 The history of central planning is overflowing with examples of success in this regard.

I'm sure your second five-year plan will work out all the kinks, though.

Posted by: Andy at November 30, 2010 01:30 PM (5Rurq)

171

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 06:21 PM (Baf0e)

 

Again, community and church charities would do the work much more efficiently than the government.  You'd be surprised at how giving the American people can be if they're presented with the choice as to give or not to give.  So, you were unprepared for your cancer.  Why weren't you prepared?  Why should that be my problem? 

 

 

Posted by: Soona at November 30, 2010 01:30 PM (HIlgc)

172 This gives them monopolistic powers.  It is wrong.  As much as I am against overt government regulation of businesses, pharmaceutical companies with monopoly power MUST have the pricing of their product regulated.

When a bag of chemotherapy medicine costs more than a like bag of melted gold, something is wrong.

I'm sorry you have been afflicted with Cancer and that treatment is expensive. But numbers tell a different story than you believe.

Lets take a look at the finances of the Pfizer company. You will find a profit margin of about 20%. So for every $20,000 in meds you buy, 16,000 is used to pay the bills, which includes amongst other costs such as research and manufacturing, 800 bucks for uncle sam, and 6 bucks for the CEO. If you feel slighted by the insane profits, feel free to buy in, PFE is currently selling for $16.30 a share more than $10 less than the 5 yr high.

Mankind has been searching for a cure to cancer for quite some time; And the numbers seem bare out what we already probably understand. If we want to push the envelope of human technology with new cutting edge treatments we do have to pay a hefty cost for them.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 30, 2010 01:30 PM (0q2P7)

173 on ObamaCare's keep-kids-on-your-insurance-'till-they're-26 provision, but I think it's too popular to get rid of

Really?

This has been in existence less than a year. How many people in America even fit into this category?

Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2010 01:34 PM (EKpAZ)

174

We pondered the game of "repeal away"

But it costs more than I will pay

Without the teat I can't make my way

I surrender, dear.

I may talk tough and not act gay

It's just a pose - I'm not that way

'Cause deep down in my heart I say:

"I surrender, dear"

Minor little changes we're doing

Are simply a part of the game

Lending a spice to the screwing

Oh, but I don't care who's to blame

When chaos appears and nations fall

Sweet statism, you'll hear my heart call

To you, my love, their lives, their all

I surrender dear

 

Posted by: Eric "Bing" Cantor & The Dead Elephant Party at November 30, 2010 01:35 PM (xy9wk)

175 If there is a certain drug you need to live and no one else has it, you MUST use the drug that company provides.

Can you provide an example of this?

Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2010 01:38 PM (EKpAZ)

176 As is so often the case, the answer is not freedom but efficiency. We just need efficient government, and lots of it. It's the conservative thing to do, no?

Liberal fascism is alive and well on the right. See "Goldberg, Jonah."

And where does freedom end and anarchy begin?  I did not say we need "lots of goverment" and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

We need the right amount of government.  We need to make government competent.  Anyone who says that freedom = no government is an idiot.  The point is SOMEONE will govern you.  If we don't create a government that works, someone will create it for us and they probably speak Chinese.

This is the trap of the far far right.  Those that believe that all government regulation is wrong.  They throw the baby out with the bath water.  Communism looks great on paper - it just doesn't work when you are dealing with human beings.  Extreme Conservatism to the point of no government sounds nice, but in reality would never work.

America is a center-right nation.  We need a center-right government.  Conservatism taken to the extreme is Anarchy and Liberalism taken to the extreme is Totalitarianism.

One of the main problems we have in America today is that about half of all American adults pay no taxes at all.  They have no skin in the game.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:39 PM (Baf0e)

177 Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 06:21 PM (Baf0e)

No, no, a thousand times no.

It is not okay to take money from someone in Maine to pay for the health care of someone in California.  It's bad enough for Massachusetts to do it within their own State borders, but at least that doesn't take money from me an my family and give it to a family in Virginia.

I'm sorry people get sick, I really am.  The mom of our church's youth minister is dieing (literally as I type this) of breast cancer- they moved her to hospice last week.  My grandmother is gone but her mindless body walks this earth because of Alzheimer's.  My wife's father has a heart defect which, if not watched very carefully, will kill him.  Her step-mom has a condition that makes her skull very brittle and had to have it pieced back together with metal plates.  These things suck.  My Granny had to get on Medicaid to be able to pay for her care- so now my mom and aunt literally cannot get any inheritance from my grandparents: the State gets to take it all to try to cover the costs incurred.

It is not government's job (and especially not the Federal Government) to provide medical care for the masses.  It just isn't.  The American people are the most generous people in the world.  Do you really think that, if Government kept its nose out of it, some charity somewhere wouldn't step up to the plate?  They're already doing it all the time.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 01:39 PM (8y9MW)

178 If Ford was the only company to make cars, would you enjoy paying $250,000 for a Ford Focus?  Why not?  They spent millions developing it?

If Ford held the patent on the automobile, (which they never did) they would be justified in exclusive rights to it for a period of time (Currently 14 years for design patents), just like any inventor of any product. And we the consumers would have to balance how much we wanted a car with how much Ford was charging.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 30, 2010 01:40 PM (0q2P7)

179

@36: "We must learn from the leftists: if we want to win, we must use subterfuge."

Brute intimidation works pretty well, too.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at November 30, 2010 01:43 PM (xy9wk)

180 "We too don't want to accept any insurance company's denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have pre-existing condition," Cantor said, addressing a young woman in the audience who noted that she had a pre-existing health condition.

This has nothing to do what so ever with the federal government Eric.

Tell her to call her parents.

Tell her to call family & friends.

Tell her that it is grossly unfair to raise Jay in Peoria's insurance premiums because she has a pre-existing condition.

Either way, stop talking.

Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2010 01:44 PM (EKpAZ)

181 "Again, community and church charities would do the work much more efficiently than the government.  You'd be surprised at how giving the American people can be if they're presented with the choice as to give or not to give.  So, you were unprepared for your cancer.  Why weren't you prepared?  Why should that be my problem? "

First of all, fuck you.

If the cops come to your house because a rapist has broken in to kill your wife, why the hell should my tax dollars go to pay for the policeman's salary?  Why didn't you put a better lock on your door?  Why didn't you take karate classes to defend her?

Why should your lack of preparation be my problem?

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:46 PM (Baf0e)

182

I know that my daughter was allowed to continue on my plan as long as she was in college.    Once out, she had to find her own coverage, and she did that through her employer.   I guess I don't understand why it is a provision of the bill to allow your kids to stay on your plan until they are 26.    What is the point?   By the time your kid is 26 they should be freakin' working & able to pay for their own insurance.   As a matter of fact, at 26 they are not a child, and as an adult should be responsible for their own healthcare.

It's just more nanny state bullshit, but fine.   If you want to keep your kid on your insurance 'til they're 26, then you pay higher premiums and don't burden others to cover your kid.   If that is part of Cantor's plan, I can deal with that, but I will not support putting that additional cost on every taxpayer.

Get the effing government out of every facet of our lives.   This shit has got to stop.

Posted by: Steph at November 30, 2010 01:48 PM (kOSds)

183 And where does freedom end and anarchy begin?

I would say far, far to the Right of the Federal Government having any sway over my health care.

And the Extreme form of Conservatism (which admits need for a limited Government) is Liberty, not anarchy.

You're the one presenting a false choice here: either the Government forces a private business (a pharmaceutical company) to behave in a certain way, or we're all for not regulating them.  The fact is we already do: we have laws about how patents work, how they're granted, and how long you get to keep them.  We have laws (well, regulations) about how you have to prove their safety and how quickly you can bring them to market.

You say "Why don't they charge $1,000,000!"  Because the market works.  A company that routinely did that would go out of business quite quickly- 1) because no one could afford what they were selling and 2) because people wouldn't buy it even when they could.  Once the entity holding the patent no longer exists (which wouldn't take long) the patent would fall into public domain and anyone with the equipment could manufacture it.

As mentioned, pharm companies don't actually make profit margins that are that big as a percentage of their actual revenue.  So they're not really the bad guys, here.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 01:50 PM (8y9MW)

184 Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 06:46 PM (Baf0e)

Because, Bill, protecting citizens from actual threats to their person (that is- from attack, theft, etc.) IS a government function.  Paying for their cancer treatments is not.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 30, 2010 01:52 PM (8y9MW)

185 First of all, fuck you.

If the cops come to your house because a rapist has broken in to kill your wife, why the hell should my tax dollars go to pay for the policeman's salary?  Why didn't you put a better lock on your door?  Why didn't you take karate classes to defend her?

Why should your lack of preparation be my problem?

Oh I get it. You confuse keeping law and order with entitlements.

Oh by the way, the I wonder what the people who payed the premium price for the last generation of cancer meds (that you won't take for lack of effectiveness) funding the new sh*t that is available to you; would say about you thinking the cost is unfair?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 30, 2010 01:53 PM (0q2P7)

186 No, no, a thousand times no.

It is not okay to take money from someone in Maine to pay for the health care of someone in California.  It's bad enough for Massachusetts to do it within their own State borders, but at least that doesn't take money from me an my family and give it to a family in Virginia.

I'm sorry people get sick, I really am.  The mom of our church's youth minister is dieing (literally as I type this) of breast cancer- they moved her to hospice last week.  My grandmother is gone but her mindless body walks this earth because of Alzheimer's.  My wife's father has a heart defect which, if not watched very carefully, will kill him.  Her step-mom has a condition that makes her skull very brittle and had to have it pieced back together with metal plates.  These things suck.  My Granny had to get on Medicaid to be able to pay for her care- so now my mom and aunt literally cannot get any inheritance from my grandparents: the State gets to take it all to try to cover the costs incurred.

It is not government's job (and especially not the Federal Government) to provide medical care for the masses.  It just isn't.  The American people are the most generous people in the world.  Do you really think that, if Government kept its nose out of it, some charity somewhere wouldn't step up to the plate?  They're already doing it all the time.

Government can have an effective role in helping to provide healthcare to those who cannot (not will not, but cannot) provide it for themselves.  Obamacare simply is not the answer.  Obamacare is not about caring for the sick, it is about power.  We need to change the tire on the car - Obamacare seeks to design and build a brand new car.

Saying that charities and churches will provide healthcare for those who cannot provide for themselves is just kind of silly.

We need efficient, competent, limited government.


Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 30, 2010 01:54 PM (Baf0e)

187 We need efficient, competent, limited government.


Bill I am still waiting for a response to the simple truth that most of what you pay for medication goes to either researching it or manufacturing it (SG&A falling around 30%) Maybe you haven't realized but some of these bags of chemicals are exceedingly hard to make.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose© at November 30, 2010 02:00 PM (0q2P7)

188

@100: "Yeah, it's kinda like trying to help a person who has just been stabbed by stabbing them some more."

Hey, if counter-flooding a sinking ship can save it, counter-stabbing some poor unfortunate should work just as well.  It's science and shit.

Posted by: Loyal Democrat at November 30, 2010 02:05 PM (xy9wk)

189

The other part is also popular -- no barring coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but it's also extremely costly and without any good way to implement it.

It's also one of the dumbest ideas one could possibly come up with.  If someone has a disease that is KNOWN to cost $50,000/month, then what sort of idiot would sell that person ANY insurance that costs less than $50,000/month?

Somehow, people have come to have this idea that if Nature afflicts you with something it is the US' responsibility (and the rest of us) to pay for your care.  That's pure insanity and anyone who takes this view (no matter how "reasonable" they try to act with it) eventually comes to the point of taking all of our money to pay for the care of someone who is just suffering part of the unfairness of Nature.

The problem is, of course, that you can't have free riders skipping insurance all their lives until the day they're diagnosed with a costly illness, then signing up and paying what healthy people pay.

I don't know how you get around this -- you either have to force people to buy insurance, which is of course a no-go (and might in fact get ObamaCare struck down by the courts), or you... no idea. You just subsidize their game-the-system behavior.

You get around it by realizing that health care is not a right.  Period.  How difficult is that concept?  You don't have a right to get a heart transplant. You don't have a right to have someone spend time attempting to cure your lung cancer.

If you can't understand and accept the idea that some people will not get medical care because they can't afford it (as is true with everything else on Earth) then you will never find a solution until you've destroyed the health care system and impoverished everyone in the process.

Posted by: Dr. Charles Montague, The Psycho-Neurotic Institute for the Very, Very Nervous at November 30, 2010 02:07 PM (G/MYk)

190 Did Cantor just get the GOP checkmated?  WTF.

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 30, 2010 02:08 PM (gMzAL)

191 Hey, any of you fools er guys think the GOP will make good on its repeal promise, shoot me a note.

Ditto for you chumps who bought the change it from the inside schpiel.

Posted by: guy selling the Brooklyn Bridge at November 30, 2010 02:11 PM (BZEkR)

192 Did Cantor just get the GOP checkmated?  WTF.

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 30, 2010 07:08 PM (gMzAL)

All I can say is that Cantor really needs to be tossed from the House leadership, now - before the new Congress comes in.  Cantor is spineless and doesn't have a clue what the mid-terms were about.  I think Cantor is the Michael Steele of the House GOP, a nice guy who sounds good every so often, but who generally does a really shitty job and needs to be replaced.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 30, 2010 02:12 PM (G/MYk)

193 So Canter is a boy wonder, genius type NEW republican huh?

"This Is Why The American People Have Thrown You Out of Power!" - AceShow me exactly ONE popular part of obowmaocare. I define popular as 'welcomed by a majority of the electorate'

Show me just one.


YOU CAN'T CAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at November 30, 2010 02:16 PM (H8NCN)

194

@140: "You can talk to me all day about R & D costs, etc - $20,000 for a bag of liquid is a fucking joke."

Allow drug reimportation and watch those costs drop.  Pharma companies and the gummint have worked together to prevent reimportation, thereby forcing Americans to subsidize R&D on drugs that the rest of the world gets at far cheaper prices.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at November 30, 2010 02:17 PM (xy9wk)

195

If we're going to cover prexisting conditions, then why involve insurance companies at all?

Guaranteeing health care has nothing to do with insurance. It's an entitlement, pure and simple.

Just take the fucking taxes out of our paychecks and be done with it. Do we have to go on pretending that any of this is about insurance, too? I guess we do. Because that's all the left does--sell lies.

Here's the crux of the matter: All anyone really needs is high deductible  catastrophic insurance. That's the whole point of insurance--you pay a small amount to cover the possibility of an event that would otherwise cripple you financially.

Everything else should be paid for out of pocket. Remove the 3rd party payer and I guarantee prices will fall because people will no longer be insulated from the costs of their treatment.

As it stands now, I couldn't care less what gets charged to my insurance company. I pay my $20 co-pay and that's it. If I was paying full freight, though, I guarantee I'd be more price sensitive and I'd also do more self rationing.

Take home owner's insurance. No one relies on insurance to cover the costs of regular upkeep. You rely on it for covering the cost of a tree smashing through your roof and causing $10,000 worth of damage.

 

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 02:25 PM (HzhBE)

196 >> Allow drug reimportation and watch those costs drop. Actually, pharma will just quit selling brand drugs outside the US below a certain price unless the buyer agrees to a domestic use-only provision. The contracts are already structured to allow for this.

Posted by: Andy at November 30, 2010 02:33 PM (RGQ79)

197

@197: "Actually, pharma will just quit selling brand drugs outside the US below a certain price unless the buyer agrees to a domestic use-only provision. The contracts are already structured to allow for this."

Still comes back to fucking over Americans. We pay all costs associated with R&D, and everybody else gets discounts. 

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at November 30, 2010 02:49 PM (xy9wk)

198 All healthcare reform has done is rearrange the chairs on the Titanic.  No one is addressing the real culprits.  Get ambulance chasing lawyers out of healthcare.  Rewrite the liability laws.  Do not pay punitive damages go to lawyers or the plantiffs.  Make them go to a third party.  A fund for victims or something.  Take the profit motive out of suing people.  Lawsuits are turning into lotteries but the money to pay those awards comes at the cost of higher services to all.  Make people pay for their own damn healthcare and let them buy what they want not pay for mandated coverage.  I shop smarter with my own money than with other peoples.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at November 30, 2010 02:52 PM (wwThC)

199 Since you can't keep the same insurance if you cross state lines, and frequently don't have the same options at a new job in the same state, that means you basically can never leave your current job. So, the answer for people concerned about "pre-existing conditions" is: get a job that provides group health coverage
Custom-Writing.org

Posted by: Terry at November 30, 2010 02:57 PM (KvgBu)

200 've read almost 200 posts on this thread so here's my two cents:

1.) Make it illegal for employers to offer health insurance. Everyone buys their own.
2.) Allow insurance to be sold across state borders. This allows better financed companies or corporations to buy out smaller, one-state companies. Better capitalized corporations = better insurance policies.
3.) Prevent states from dictating what policies must contain. Insurance companies are not public utilities. Keep politicians and their appointees from stipulating what must be contained in insurance policies. This flexibility will allow policies that cover pre-existing conditions to be covered (for a price).
4.) No mandate for covering pre-existing conditions or anything else, for that matter. Let the market determine what will be covered.
5.) Tort Reform.

Given these conditions, I will start soliciting financial backing to start up an insurance company specializing in covering pre-existing conditions.
I am a 55-year old diabetic. I have lost 80 pounds anf brought my fasting BG from 255 to 90, my blood pressur from 140 over 85 (with drugs) to 120 over 70 (without drugs). A $5,000.00 deductible policy would be pure profit for a ciompany operating under my proposals, as I spend less than $2,500.00/yr for health care.
No mandates, no bullshit warping of the markets by politicians and planners. Costs will go down and the level of care will go up. Trust me or not, you have to trust the market.

Posted by: Josef K. at November 30, 2010 03:11 PM (7+pP9)

201 Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2010 07:25 PM (HzhBE)

Bingo!

Posted by: Andy at November 30, 2010 03:12 PM (veZ9n)

202 Throw it all out.  ALL OF IT.  Start over from scratch.  Allow insurance to be sold across state lines.   Allow individuals to join pools.  Allow individuals to buy just catastrophic insurance. 

Posted by: kathysaysso at November 30, 2010 05:08 PM (ZtwUX)

That's pretty much, basically, it.

I've been an Health and Life insurance professional and I could give you all of the policy, economic and actuarial details as to why this is so but kathysaysso has the basics nailed.

I would include decoupling Health insurance from employment / compensation, myself.

I'm not discounting the very real political difficulty of selling these basic principals to the kind of jack-holes who regularly tune in to watch "The Biggest Loser" or "Keeping Up with the Kardashians".

But it has to be done!

Insurance (and I mean true insurance, not some sort of third payer scheme where the consumer expects to pay not much more than $30 out of pocket for a blood draw or a heart transplant) is a remarkably cost-effective way for most people to manage the risk of a financially catastrophic medical event.


Sorry if I'm restating others' points.  Got in late.  Responded to the first comment that made total sense to me.




Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2010 04:38 PM (Jb3+B)

203 Here's another vote for kathysaysso, and a second to Deety@204.

Posted by: Ken at November 30, 2010 04:56 PM (fFh95)

204 I am very happy about that, since during bad times, it's not as if my mandatory health insurance payment would have kept a roof over my head or food in my stomach. Alas, under the new law, all things being equal, I would have paid for stuff I didn't need and died because I couldn't afford what I did ( For everyone who is not a single, white, male; this would mean that food and housing entitlements go through the roof).

SWF here.

I'm gonna have to pull about $400 from my HSA and (at some point) pay a 10% tax penalty on that amount tomorrow to make my rent.

It is what it is, though.  2010 has been spectacularly suck-ass for me personally and financially.  (I can't even remember what it was like when I had an "extra" $800 lying around in 2008 that I figured I would plow into my HSA.)

I'll still have my individual Catastrophic Coverage plan but will be that much shy of being able to make my $5,000 deductible incase I get hit by a an anvil or come down with Lupus or something.

Thank God, "it's never Lupus"!

Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2010 05:04 PM (Jb3+B)

205 It's pretty clear that it will be third party time next go around.  The Pubbies were sent as clear a message as possible and they still want their earmarks and want to pump us full of socialism lite.  They can't even wait until they're all seated to start giving us the back of their hands.  They were told to REPEAL this damn thing, not replace it or water it down.  Defund it and fight a holding action until help arrives.

If we are going to go left I want us to go fast and to go all the way because I want to be young enough to start over when it all comes tumbling down.  I want to still be alive to guide my daughter through it when the new country and government is established to replace the failed one.  If that goes poorly then I want to be able to relocate to whatever redoubt of liberty is left on the planet

I will vote for candidates I like but the days of holding my nose and voting for McCain because he has Palin on the ticket or voting for Romney because he is not Obama are over.  Let's just get it over with... one way or the other. 


Posted by: Got fooled again at November 30, 2010 05:10 PM (sfNbl)

206 Ace of Spades = Ace of Squish

Posted by: Name* at November 30, 2010 05:36 PM (V9WrQ)

207 So one way to get around this without bankrupting insurance companies would be to require allowing kids to stay on their parent's policy to some age (say 22 but the exact age is probably not important) and have a requirement that insurance companies can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions up to age 22 and can't drop you or raise your rates above that of your pool if you develop a condition after that. BUT, if you are OVER age 22 and have a preexisting condition, then the insurance company can do whatever it wants: deny coverage or charge a huge amount for it.

I think that what you might want to look into waiting, rather than mandating what sorts of coverage, on what terms, individual private insurance companies are allowed to offer is a special pool of "pre-existers" that would have their purchase of private insurance even subsidized by the state.

Yeah, I said it!  But I'm no objectivist, so there!

I'm thinking of an instance of someone being born with a condition like Cerebral Palsy.  What happens to those people after they age out of their parents' policies at age 18 or 26 or whatever

Why not have private insurance companies do the underwriting to determine what it would cost them to insure that particular pool of people and put their bids up.

We the taxpayer will take care of X% of the premium.

Lowest bidder sets the bottom but the subsidy can be applied to any company or policy the individual chooses.

"Yeah, Barebonez Insurance would be virtually free for me with the subsidy but still.  I'd rather pay $2,000 extra for that plan with Notsocrap & Casualty LLC.  It's just a better deal.  Besides, my wife has her policy through Notsocrap and they seem to have treated her pretty well so far.

*Also, lowest bidder has to prove that they have other profitable lines of business than the high-risk, subsidy gaming, pools.




Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2010 05:44 PM (Jb3+B)

208

Please. Giving little Suzy "Cancer all over" Hopenbocker a million dollars to keep on drawing bad drawings of Turkeys? I think we can set the bar lower than that.

Posted by: Will at November 30, 2010 05:47 PM (77TeU)

209 Cantor said he did not say this. The media is playing you.

What he said there were some parts of the bill that would be part of their replace bill. Big difference. Even the Politico corrected their article.

Posted by: tarpon at November 30, 2010 05:09 PM (g0QB

Cantor is lying.  He's a weasel.  Our Richmond, VA, conservative talk radio guy was all over this today.  He played tape of Cantor talking with Laura Ingraham and he was hemming and hawing over her question about full repeal.  She had to ask three times before he got his whiny, singsong voice out and said, "Laura, Laura, Laura, we're going for repeal."  Cantor's got a lot of untoward stuff going on in his "public service" that's not too well known outside his district.

The callers from his district already had the long knives out for him.  His best challenger a few weeks ago was a true conservative who was way underfunded compared to Eric "Young Guns" Cantor's GOP machine.  People from his district are furious -- and that's putting it mildly.

Posted by: RushBabe at November 30, 2010 05:52 PM (a3Z62)

210 When I raised the alarm about this prospect couple months before the election all I got were howls denouncing me for negativity. Suffer now that you have no intention of going beyond slogans into actual economics. GOP could've adopted a CATO plan and negotiated to modify it. But instead they've gone for Repeal and Replicate instead.

Posted by: Contemplationist at November 30, 2010 06:15 PM (Lk9yH)

211 I suppose you could have a sliding scale for premium costs. If you sign up when your old and sick, your premium would be higher than if you had been covered since you were young?

Uhm...

That's the way it works right now. (At least in the individual market.)

Even being a smoker, my rate would be about $60 less per month, right now, if I had signed up for this plan a decade ago.

(Not that this kind of coverage was actually available back then.  But that's another story.)

I'm lucky, I put it off until after 35 and I've been remarkably healthy and immune to physical accident (chalk that up to being a 'fraidy cat!) all my life.  

But no.  I am not at all sanguine about running around uninsured at this point in my life.  (You just can't be after the first ever time you are just walking around like a normal person at the grocery and suddenly stop and exclaim, "Oh, Holy Crap! My hip suddenly hurts!".

Probably, I'd do just as well on a physical exam tomorrow as I did 5 years ago. 

One year, two years, three years out?

I'm not that confident, nor should I be.

I'm just not 27 years old any more.  It is entirely possible that I may develop "conditions".

Alls I knows is...

They ain't "pre-existing"!

(Besides, it has to be Lupus sometimes, doesn't it?  My luck lately, I get to prove the rule.)



Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2010 06:24 PM (Jb3+B)

212 We CANNOT take care of our debt without getting rid of a significant chunk of Federal spending. CANNOT. As in CANNOT. We can't raise taxes high enough to pay for it, and even if we thought we were doing so it would result in a contraction of the economy while the debt continued to grow.

We are either going to have to shrink the spending to control it, or conquer other countries and steal their resources (a temporary solution), or just let everything fall apart.

We can either make the unpopular choices now while we still have a choice, or have them made for us later when we have to meaningful input and probably no freedom either.

History would seem to indicate that the latter is more likely, sadly. Who knew Fallout 3 was an educational program?

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at November 30, 2010 06:49 PM (bxiXv)

213 I would not deny the company a chance to make a profit, but since they have monopolistic powers I would deny them them ability to price their product in such a way to reap obscene profits.

We could say, ok, you can price this medicine so that you will recover your R & D costs over the first 5 years plus a set profit margin.

If Ford was the only company to make cars, would you enjoy paying $250,000 for a Ford Focus?  Why not?  They spent millions developing it?

Bill Mitchell, you are an a-historical, economically illiterate, chowder-head!

Monopolies are actually kind of tough to (impossible) achieve in a market place.  'How do these fearsome entities come about?' you would do well to ponder. Hmmmm....

As far as obscene profits.

Do you have a ratings system?

Like what kinds of profits are G, or PG-13?  Where is the cut-off before profits go from R to XXX?

I mean, I'm fucking fascinated to find out what your scale is.

Yeah.  Ford cars.  Rhetoric FAIL.

If you don't mean to be evocative of history and culture in your analogies or metaphors (though why employ such devices otherwise?) you might do better to go with the generic terms "widget" and "entity XYZ" etc..

But for the Model -T, you would have been onto a brilliant analogy (in your mind).

Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2010 07:01 PM (Jb3+B)

214 "I will build a car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one—and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces."

P.S. Never trust the Joos! They'll fuck it all up for the rest of us.  Mark my words.

Posted by: Henry Ford at November 30, 2010 07:24 PM (Jb3+B)

215

The other part is also popular -- no barring coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but it's also extremely costly and without any good way to implement it. The problem is, of course, that you can't have free riders skipping insurance all their lives until the day they're diagnosed with a costly illness, then signing up and paying what healthy people pay.

I don't know how you get around this -- you either have to force people to buy insurance, which is of course a no-go (and might in fact get ObamaCare struck down by the courts), or you... no idea. You just subsidize their game-the-system behavior.


I f I remember correctly McCain talked about creating pools for these people so that they would not drive up insurance rates for other consumers. Maybe they are thinking about doing something like that.

Posted by: Terrye at December 01, 2010 02:06 AM (9iEV2)

216

I f I remember correctly McCain talked about creating pools for these people so that they would not drive up insurance rates for other consumers. Maybe they are thinking about doing something like that.

How do you create a free-rider pool?  How also doese any of this address one of the real cost drivers in many states - illegals at the E.R.?

Requiring one person to pay another's hostpital bills is wrong.  That is all one is doing when one requires an insurer to "cover" a pre-existing condition.  Insurance is pooling against risk.  Covering a pre-existing condition is not pooling against risk, but transfering the known costs from one entity or person to another.

It is absolutely unfortunate that some people may get really sick without having insurance.  However, we have to decide whether we want a socialist health care system or not.  The only way to insure that every single person is covered, pre-existing condition or not, is with a socialized system where the gov't controls it.  that is - everyone is forced to pay in and everyone is covered.  Which then means that the gov't is in charge of rationing care, etc.

I, for one, don't think that is the way.  I think we can perhaps create gov't programs for some of the people in such situations (medicaid) and charity has to step in for others, but there will always be those who slip through the cracks.  We cannot enforce coverage for everyone without some kind of socialized system.  I, for one, don't think it is the gov't's job to provide health-care.  I don't believe that health care is a "right" that everyone is entitled to. 

Socialized health care will be what it is everywhere (and what socialism does for everything) everyone will have it, but it will on average, be less quality and less accessible for people and likely will be more costly overall (through taxes, etc.).  But, everyone (except the very rich and politicians) will have equal health care.

Every time a republican talks about covering people with pre-existing conditions, he is giving in to the road to socialized health care and should be a non-starter.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at December 01, 2010 03:23 AM (sOx93)

217 "Plus, it doesn't matter what the GOP does.  Obama will veto it."

How the GOP can win even without changing a single law:

Step one:  bill to repeal Obamacare passes house, dies in Senate or vetoed

Step two:  bill to make hc premiums permanently tax deductible by individuals passes house, maybe gets somewhere in Senate

Step three:  bill to bill to repeal Obamacare passes house.  Senate has to either pass it or keep defending it.

Step four:  bill to make hc sellable across state lines passes house.  Senate has to either pass it or argue against it.

Rinse & repeat with tort reform, etc.  Even if not a single bill gets signed by Il Douche, it is a continual hammering of free market ideas against the bulwark of idiot Demotards defending death panels and higher taxes.

Posted by: delayna at December 01, 2010 05:41 AM (0Ca5M)

218

There IS a very good way of covering the "Pre-existing conditions" problem. Create a special "assigned risk" pool for them. Their insurance rate would be appropriately higher to cover their expenses and they would be separate from the mass of ordinary risks. Massachusetts has had this system in automobile insurance for "assigned risk" people [with poor driving records and high claims] or years.

 

There ARE solutions to problems, if only politicians would stop bashing each other and just get to work!

Posted by: Ron at December 01, 2010 06:50 AM (LOW7U)

219 I happen to agree with you, Ace. It's not what a purist wants but the realities of the situation must be considered. First, GOP Senators cannot be counted on to align with us unless they can use the word "bipartisan" a lot.

Complete repeal of ObamaCare is probably not in the cards but it can be replaced with something a lot less monstrous and may even get significant Democrat support. Government intervention in health care can be pared back.

ObamaCare is a disaster from several angles and I doubt Obama or any of his staff even read the stupid bill. Obama is a grand stander among other things and just wants the bragging rights without any of the heavy lifting. This clown better be a one-termer because we can't stand 8 years of such Carteresque incompetence.


Posted by: Full Moon at December 01, 2010 02:05 PM (DtbEv)

220 Clearly no Republicans either have no clue why they won in November... or have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in their own values.

This is just inexcusably bizarre.
college paper writing service

Posted by: Terry at December 04, 2010 02:27 AM (tjdRo)

221 Yerli yabanci vizyondaki tum film izle ve seyret

Posted by: kafabulandiran at December 04, 2010 02:26 PM (108Xt)

222 I hope you never stop!  This is one of the best blogs Ive ever read.  Youve got some mad skill here, man.  I just hope that you dont lose your style because youre definitely one of the coolest bloggers out there.  Please keep it up because the internet needs someone like you spreading the word.

Posted by: dovetail spline joints at March 26, 2011 05:03 PM (uUsYL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
255kb generated in CPU 0.13, elapsed 0.1718 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0551 seconds, 409 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.