Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

[Omaha]

mjs, as a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist, I agree; let the market rule. It has done a fine job of putting quality health care products on the market at costs families and employers can afford. I mean that is how the market works. Through competition the market insists that businesses do that or go broke.

Why do anything to ration health care insurance by anything other than price. The President had it right. Costs will double in a decade. That is great for investors. What other kind of scam is there where profits can be made by denying the sick coverage [[pre-existing conditions) or putting policy holders through an appeal process [[after red lighting their files) to get what they believe are covered illnesses paid for?

Government interference in the name of helping people screws with maximum short-term profit maximization. Take the regulation of child labor. The first factory in the U.S. hired kids under 12 to work the water powered machines. Not a bad way to keep labor costs down. But it was ruined by government interference.

Or look what happened to student loans after the government got out of the business. Interest rates on loans to students soared and so did profits for those making the loans.

Keep the free market free. So what if eventually only the rich and well-born will be able to afford health care treatment…as a Social Darwinist I say that is the way the system is supposed to work.

[ccbatson]

Omaha...do you have an obsessive speech problem? You always preface your posts with the same phrase....a subtle Tourette's syndrome type of pattern appears to be surfacing. If so, that is very interesting to me as I have always thought these to be manifest purely in the verbal realm, never via typed communication. Fascinating.

[ccbatson]

The cornerstone Of Obama's program is GOVERNMENT RATIONING. It is not yet clear if it will be legal to go outside of his plan and pay out of pocket to escape his authoritarian and totalitarian tyrannical edicts.

[mjs]

So, health care is going to double. Our population is getting older, we're getting unhealtheir, there's a shortage of medical care professionals, and Americans feel their entitled to everything in the world when it comes to benefits. I fail to see how a public HMO will address any of these things.

Look, if people want a government health care option to compete with private HMOs, do exactly that then. Allow Doctors and hospitals the option of not participating in the public HMO the same as they can choose not to work with a private HMO. Allow the needy to choose between the public program or a private program.

Also mandate that the public HMO, like private HMOs, can not operate indefinently in the red. This can be done through the vouchers I described. Say the average regional premium that just covers the mandated coverage is $5000/year. Give people under poverty something like a voucher for $4750 [[95%). Allow them to sign that voucher over to the HMO of their choice. It can be the government HMO, a nonprofit HMO, or a for profit HMO. If they find something for $4750 great. If they want something else thats a little more, they only need to cover the little more.

Have tax payer money fund the vouchers but just like the private HMOs require that the program has to survive off only the vouchers and the customer payments. Not one dime from the general fund; the whole trillion will already be going to fund the universal vouchers. If the government HMO falls short one quarter, they have to raise their premiums until that debt is payed off. Thats what private HMOs must do.

If the government HMO wants to act like a big boy, its time they're treated like a big boy. If they really can do it for less, god bless, let them grow. If they can't, then let them fail like any other HMO would and we'd be left with the voucher system to ensure universal coverage.

[ccbatson]

Did anyone suggest that an HMO [[largely Ted Kennedy's brain child BTW) was a solution?

Free markets in the form of traditional insurance purchased not by mandate by employers, but by consumers. Or, HSAs [[a great idea) hybridizing out of pocket fee for service [[market forces increasing quality and decreasing costs over time) and insurance for catastrophic items.

[rb336]

The cornerstone Of Obama's program is GOVERNMENT RATIONING. It is not yet clear if it will be legal to go outside of his plan and pay out of pocket to escape his authoritarian and totalitarian tyrannical edicts.

ah, yes, more Bats parroting right wing BS. BUT since he put it ALL IN CAPS, that most prove its legitimacy. wrong again, Bats

[rb336]

Can't we come up with something less wasteful and inefficient, cut out the middle men [[government) altogether and save a bundle?

that is almost funny. i would much rather cut out the money grubbing leaches that run the health care scam in this country right now, [[virtual mass murderers, all of them, since they set up rules that deny life-saving procedures just so they can pocket bigger salaries and bonuses) -- stop treating health as if it were pork bellies and more like it is ... health

[mjs]

Stop treating the world as though it doesn't require tradeoffs. Everybody denies benefits. Non profits do it, medicare does it, and even your beloved single payer systems do it. Did you bother to read the report you told me to read? Its your source.

In 2002, Medicare covered less than half [[45 percent) of beneficiaries’ total medical and long-term care expenses. Beneficiaries paid, on average, 19 percent of total expenses, or $2,223, out of pocket. About half of all beneficiaries spent less than $1,000 out of pocket, while almost 10 percent of beneficiaries spent $5,000 or more.

However, the program provides limited long-term care benefits, does not cover eyeglasses, hearing aids, or dental care, and, until 2006, does not pay for outpatient prescription drugs.

To help pay for benefits not covered by Medicare and to ease the burden of Medicare’s relatively high cost-sharing requirements, the majority of Medicare beneficiaries—almost nine in 10—have some form of supplemental health insurance.

Yet, even after all their noncoverage, denials, and not having to pay for prescription drugs which far outpaces overall medical costs increses, they've still been unable to reel in costs despite how much the money grubbing leeches supplement elderly care.

Private health insurance spending grew at an average annual rate of 10.1 percent in the period between 1970 and 2003, while Medicare spending grew at an average rate of 9.0 percent.

Medicare spending is projected to grow at a rate significantly higher than that of the overall economy. Between 2000 and 2030, Medicare’s share of the gross domestic product [[GDP) is estimated to triple from 2.3 percent to 6.8 percent. The addition of the prescription drug benefit in 2006 accounts for about one-third of the increase.

Medicare is responsible for almost one-fifth of the $1.4 trillion in personal health care expenditures in the U.S.

Meaning they deny over $342 billion/yr of needed medical care for those they cover. 1/5th of $1.4 trillion is $280 billion. If that covers 45% of the cost, then the remaining 55% is $342 billion. That doesn't account for the benefits people needed but didn't get because of the out of pocket expense.

An older population costs more to insure. An unhealthier population costs more to insure. Its true whether the most evil SOBs on the planet run health care or the kindest, best intentioned souls ever. Find solutions, not scapegoats.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/M...005-Report.pdf

[rb336]

I read it, mjs. there is a HUGE difference between copays -- which is what the report's talking about -- and denying coverage of FDA and Dr approved tests.

It is not a matter of finding scapegoats, it's a matter of understanding that the insurance companies are not about health, they are about making a profit. your health means nothing to them at all, except as a means of denying you coverage for pre-existing conditions. It's a matter of understanding that basic health care is a right of every human, not a means for greedy bean counters and CEOs to get rich

[ccbatson]

Rb....you are almost there. All business is about making a profit. Apply this FACT to reality and a marketplace whereby incentives create improvements in quality and decrease in quality for the product or service that the CONSUMER [[not the government, not the employer, not a myriad of other intermediaries) want, need and desire.

A free market system is the solution...period.

[Bobl]

I've had it with this BS. If we insist on letting the insurance and paharmaceuticals continue to run the show, let's remove their special status that makes lawsuits against them nearly impossible.
My partner's insurance company recently refused paying for her Plavix. Cardiologist, who has straightened them out before, is out of town.
Now, we are on the way to the emergency room, as her toe is turning a dark color. We hope we are in time. Let the bastards pay for it!
If they choose to cut costs, and an injury or death occurs, they should be sued.
Right now, if I met the CEO personally, bad things would happen.
This is disgusting.

[rb336]

Rb....you are almost there. All business is about making a profit. Apply this FACT to reality and a marketplace whereby incentives create improvements in quality and decrease in quality for the product or service that the CONSUMER [[not the government, not the employer, not a myriad of other intermediaries) want, need and desire.

A free market system is the solution...period.

gee, and that is why:
1) the #1 health care system in the US based on consumer satisfaction is Medicare
2) virtually every other developed country has a health ystem that costs less and has better outcomes
3) the ONLY incentive these guys have is to suck more and more out of the system. These are companies that are exempt from non-collusion laws, virtually exempt from lawsuits, esp. the wrongful death kind. They have no incentive to provide better service at a more reasonable price because they are so exempt. Show me one area where your worshipped invisible hand has done so.

[ghettopalmetto]

I have decided that if Senator Jim DeMint wants the government's hands off his health care, then I need to contact his office this evening to remind him who currently provides the health insurance he will enjoy for the rest of his life.

Even before this recession began, 700,000 people in South Carolina [[out of 4.4 million) were uninsured. And all Senator DeMint can think about is "destroying" President Obama.

If people like him ran the show in the 1770s, we'd have the Queen on our money right now.

[jams]

I have decided that if Senator Jim DeMint wants the government's hands off his health care, then I need to contact his office this evening to remind him who currently provides the health insurance he will enjoy for the rest of his life.

Even before this recession began, 700,000 people in South Carolina [[out of 4.4 million) were uninsured. And all Senator DeMint can think about is "destroying" President Obama.

If people like him ran the show in the 1770s, we'd have the Queen on our money right now.

...and, as well, a Government sponsored Health Care program these types would be crowing about.

[Thomcat52]

Ask your congressman, or rep. if they will be included in this great health care program. If it's not good enough for them, why would it be so for the masses? They will exempt themselves as they always do.

[ccbatson]

What? The chosen statist elites held to the privileges that they limit the masses to? First you have to convince them to obey the law.

[mjs]

These are companies that are exempt from non-collusion laws.

Pretty well the entire post is your objective estimate or an urban legend you heard from a friend of a friend with zero data or sources to back it up, but this is about the fifth time you stated this specific line. I have never ever heard of this and I had the highest grade in my anti-trust class. Post the statute that exempts them. Time to put up or shut up.

[rb336]

Pretty well the entire post is your objective estimate or an urban legend you heard from a friend of a friend with zero data or sources to back it up, but this is about the fifth time you stated this specific line. I have never ever heard of this and I had the highest grade in my anti-trust class. Post the statute that exempts them. Time to put up or shut up.

it is no "urban legend"

if they weren't exempt from anti-trust laws, why does HR 1583 [[Insurance Industry Competition Act) seek to remove the exemption [[part of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945)?

[mjs]

It is an urban legend based on a bill that has no practical effect.

HR 1583 is five sentences long and modifies 15 U.S.C. Chapter 20. Chapter 20 basically says the states can make insurance anti-trust laws and that it wouldn't apply until 1948. Vast majority of laws don't take immediate effect and most, but not all federal statutes state that they don't pre-empt state regulation of the area. The bill would state the non-pre-emption differently and remove the following paragraph stating that the law would not apply to insurance until 1948.

Until June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, and the Act of September 26, 1914, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], and the Act of June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Anti-Discrimination Act, shall not apply to the business of insurance or to acts in the conduct thereof.

The current code already says that insurance is subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act. That is exactly opposite of what you are claiming.

Provided, That after June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, and the Act of September 26, 1914, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State Law.

HR 1583 is the exact bill raised in the last Congress where they let it die in committee before reintroducing it to committee where it has sat since March. It is nothing more than blowing smoke up your ass to make it sound like they're stopping those bad bad men and their evil evil ways.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-1583
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1583
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._15_10_20.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...sup_01_15.html

[rb336]

Read the following: Federal statutory exemptions from antitrust law written
by the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law.

Sections 2 & 3 of the McCarren-Ferguson Act specifically exempt insurers from Federal law, INCLUDING the Sherman Antitrust legislation.

if something is real, it is NOT an Urban Legend. Sherman is OVERRIDDEN by the later bill, which is the way things work. the rest of what you posted is, simply, irrelevent

HR 1583 is not "five sentences long"

here is the text, in its entirety [[Courtesy of Thomas)

Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2009 [[Introduced in House)


HR 1583 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1583
To further competition in the insurance industry.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 18, 2009


Mr. DEFAZIO [[for himself, Mr. TAYLOR, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. HARE, and Mr. NADLER of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To further competition in the insurance industry.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

• [[a) In General- The Act of March 9, 1945 [[59 Stat. 33; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) [[commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act) is amended--

• 
  
  • [[1) in section 2[[b) [[15 U.S.C. 1012[[b)), by--

• 
  
  • 
    
    • [[A) inserting `as it relates to unfair methods of competition,' after `Commission Act, as amended,'; and

• 
  
  • 
    
    • [[B) striking `to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law' and inserting `The Federal Trade Commission Act, as it relates to areas other than unfair methods of competition, shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.'; and

• 
  
  • [[2) by striking section 3 [[15 U.S.C. 1013).

• [[b) Federal Trade Commission Act- Section 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act [[15 U.S.C. 46) is amended by striking the third undesignated paragraph following subsection [[i).

SEC. 3. JOINT ENFORCEMENT POLICY STATEMENT.

• The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission may issue joint statements of their antitrust enforcement policies regarding joint activities in the business of insurance.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ask your congressman, or rep. if they will be included in this great health care program. If it's not good enough for them, why would it be so for the masses? They will exempt themselves as they always do.

Our Congressmen and Senators already receive outstanding life-long government-provided health insurance--health care that nearly 50 million uninsured Americans help pay for. These ass clowns on the Hill have the least to lose out of anyone, and a great deal of them could give two shits that you can't see a doctor because you got laid off or are working poor.

[ghettopalmetto]

This is the plan your Congressmen and Senators currently receive. Is yours this good?

http://www.opm.gov/INSURE/HEALTH/

[mjs]

My quote saying Sherman applies is from McCarren-Ferguson. Yes, if you wish to twist it, its not technically a lie that it excluded insurance from the amended version of the Sherman Act from 1945 to 1948 just as its not technically a lie that credit cards are excluded from the amendments under the Credit Reform Act of 2009 until 2010. However, the more accurate statement is that it doesn't go into effect until 2010 so credit card issuers can have time to end their business relationships with the customers they won't want under the new law.

Another quote without a reference once again? Why do I always have to find your sources for you? Is this 447 page ABA publication what you are talking about? I know you haven't read it or even skimmed it. It lists statutes that clarify what is and what isn't an anti-trust violation. For technology, it discusses how competing corporations can discuss new unpatented technology or the results of safety policies, but not costs or prices. For the airline industry, it discusses how they can share a live price databases so travel agents can compare prices, but airliners can't set a bottom price. For insurance, they can share information on the average costs for drivers with six points or the average cost of a patient with lung cancer, but they can't say what they charge per policy or call dibs on a specific area. Obama's plan calls for more information sharing which can be an anti-trust violation in some industries, but in others, it can be a government mandated cost savings. Keep giving me clues as to what your sources are and I'll keep reading them for you so you can know what they really say. http://www.abanet.org/abastore/index...rt&pid=5030504

If it were clear cut, a plea would be completed almost immediately after an FTC filing. The Constitution says a statute has to clarify what constitutes a violation or the case fails for vagueness and the legislatures don't want to leave the courts to fill in the gaps.

A sentence ends with a period. Excluding titles, count the number of periods in the statute you quoted. I acknowledge its very difficult to tell where sentences end in many statutes, but I didn't teach these guys sentence structure.

Its not even the point. Explain which words in your bill say that it restricts something and just one example of something that would be disallowed after the bill is written that isn't a disallowed already. I already provided links to the statutes it references as well as quoting the paragraph it seeks to remove. Once again, we have both now read the exact words of the bill. Tell me how it supports your claim that insurance is treated special.

[ccbatson]

How do the politicians get away with not answering the question of whether they will accept the same insurance they are pushing for everyone else for their own personal use?

[rb336]

My quote saying Sherman applies is from McCarren-Ferguson. Yes, if you wish to twist it, its not technically a lie that it excluded insurance from the amended version of the Sherman Act from 1945 to 1948 just as its not technically a lie that credit cards are excluded from the amendments under the Credit Reform Act of 2009 until 2010. However, the more accurate statement is that it doesn't go into effect until 2010 so credit card issuers can have time to end their business relationships with the customers they won't want under the new law.

it is not a lie, it is not a rumor, it is fact that M-F gave insurance sweeping exclusions. where you get the idea it doesn't is comical. the rest of what you say here is utterly irrelevent.

Another quote without a reference once again? Why do I always have to find your sources for you? Is this 447 page ABA publication what you are talking about? I know you haven't read it or even skimmed it.

i read chapter 5, the one dealing with MF. the rest of what you said is nothing but diversionary BS that has nothing to do with the issue at hand