Cracks in the armor, too little too late

[Lorax]

I don't know what position you're taking here, since the bill you posted clearly states that no exclusions for pre-existing conditions will be allowed.

WTF?

[Stosh]

I don't know what position you're taking here, since the bill you posted clearly states that no exclusions for pre-existing conditions will be allowed.

WTF?

Read what you wrote:

You've only given big insurers access to a future 50 million uninsured people they can rake over the coals by denying health coverage for pre-existing conditions, dropping claims, etc. In other words, back to business as usual.

[ccbatson]

Co-ops are not a surrender to free enterprise [[though that is what we should be pursuing as a solution) because free enterprise requires that government limits it's role to establishing and enforcing laws that insure free and just trade. Anything less than that will be a diluted form of creeping socialism.

[ccbatson]

Oh...here you go Rb:

free enterprise requires limited government [[A is to B)

Co-ops are not forms of limited government [[C is to not A)

Co-ops are do not lead to free enterprise [[C is to not B via not A is to not B)

Do you need physical evidence of that Rb?

[Stosh]

Oh...here you go Rb:

free enterprise requires limited government [[A is to B)

Co-ops are not forms of limited government [[C is to not A)

Co-ops are do not lead to free enterprise [[C is to not B via not A is to not B)

Do you need physical evidence of that Rb?

It seems that perhaps you need a lesson in simple ratio/math comparison, as well as simple English usage as well, Also remedial logic classes as well. Maybe beginner organizational skills as well.

A) Free Enterprise
B) Limited Government
C) Co-ops

A is to B as C is to B and A.

Free enterprise and limited government are both two separate concepts. Free enterprise is the basic right of people to own a business, or a part of one. Limited government is just that, limited. And Co-ops are owned and governed by the shareholders, not the government.

See how easy that was? Now try and tell me that my logic is flawed. Are my definitions not correct?

[rb336]

Oh...here you go Rb:

free enterprise requires limited government [[A is to B)

Mostly true, except that the term "limited government" is practically meaningless since you provide no parameters. Sweden has a lot of free enterprise, lots of entrepreneurial companies, but a FAR less limited government than the US. a more accurate comment would be "free enterprise requires a government that allows private ownership of enterprises" but then, that formulation wouldn't allow you your bogeyman

Co-ops are not forms of limited government [[C is to not A)

duh

Co-ops are do not lead to free enterprise [[C is to not B via not A is to not B)

Do you need physical evidence of that Rb?

no, but you clearly proved your fundamental lack of understanding of logical reasoning. C does, indeed lead to free enterprise - see, for example, Ocean Spray, Land o' Lakes, etc. F

[Lorax]

Read what you wrote:

Your contention was that the bill, as written by house democrats was to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions- the bill does not say that. You copied the text, read it yourself.

My contention was that anything less than a public option would not be change at all. That co-ops would be a give away to corporate medical lobbyists, so in effect, business as usual.

[Lorax]

Co-ops are not a surrender to free enterprise [[though that is what we should be pursuing as a solution) because free enterprise requires that government limits it's role to establishing and enforcing laws that insure free and just trade. Anything less than that will be a diluted form of creeping socialism.

Creeping socialism is what we want, not fascist corporate control of the nation. We've had a taste of what a disaster that is. If competition is such a desired thing, then how come we need health care reform after decades of unfettered competition and billion dollar paychecks to Bill Frist at United Health Scare?

If the current system is working so well, how come we have 50 million uninsured, with more being dropped and denied every day?

[Stosh]

Your contention was that the bill, as written by house democrats was to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions- the bill does not say that. You copied the text, read it yourself.

My contention was that anything less than a public option would not be change at all. That co-ops would be a give away to corporate medical lobbyists, so in effect, business as usual.

Once again wrong ass assumptions on your part. My only response to you was the fact that you plopped the statement below into your text:

You've only given big insurers access to a future 50 million uninsured people they can rake over the coals by denying health coverage for pre-existing conditions, dropping claims, etc. In other words, back to business as usual.

Pay close attention to those words of yours underlined. That is what I was replying to. I sure did copy the text, and also read it. And at the very beginning of the cut and paste, was this statement by me:

And if you read the bill proposed, there are provisions for denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Edit: A quote from the bill itself:

Obviously I wasn't clear in this statement, so sue me. It should have read that there are provisions for preventing the denial of coverage.

You still were wrong in your statement quoted above, as evidenced by the text from the bill. Which was the point I was trying to make in the first place.

[elganned]

If the current system is working so well, how come we have 50 million uninsured, with more being dropped and denied every day?

The relevant question to ask is for whom is the current system working so well?

The answer of course is that it's working very well for Big Pharma, the insurance companies, and anyone who's still employed and has coverage [[though that last one may not be true very much longer). It ain't broken for them, so they don't want it fixed.

[Lorax]

The relevant question to ask is for whom is the current system working so well?

The answer of course is that it's working very well for Big Pharma, the insurance companies, and anyone who's still employed and has coverage [[though that last one may not be true very much longer). It ain't broken for them, so they don't want it fixed.

Quite true. If you have money, there isn't much you can't get your hands on, including insurance.

Problem is, the media is run by the wealthy, well-connected effetes who themselves have no problem paying for health care, so when the microphone is controlled by corporatists, then the rest of the population hasn't got a chance in getting the truth out.

[rb336]

The relevant question to ask is for whom is the current system working so well?

The answer of course is that it's working very well for Big Pharma, the insurance companies, and anyone who's still employed and has coverage [[though that last one may not be true very much longer). It ain't broken for them, so they don't want it fixed.

I'm still employed and have coverage, my portion of the premium has doubled over the last two years, my copays have doubles, my deductables have gone up. That is not what I consider "working for me" - it is more like me working for the fat asses in the industry. Just think, if government were to make similar increases to taxes, there would be a massive uproar from the right, but since these changes only really hurt the middle and working classes, they don't seem to care. hell, the whole thing is just a form of extortion

[Lorax]

I'm still employed and have coverage, my portion of the premium has doubled over the last two years, my copays have doubles, my deductables have gone up. That is not what I consider "working for me" - it is more like me working for the fat asses in the industry. Just think, if government were to make similar increases to taxes, there would be a massive uproar from the right, but since these changes only really hurt the middle and working classes, they don't seem to care. hell, the whole thing is just a form of extortion

I couldn't agree more.

I just received my yearly pole up the ass from my insurer, Vista Health of South Florida, which will require me to up my deductible to 5000 for inpatient care, reduce coverage in other areas, double co-pays, in order to keep the same premium payment I have now. And I don't have any pre-existing conditions, and in fact, have never used my insurance for more than yearly visits to the GP.

You're right, it's not working. When costs are so overwhelming, and the image of these free health bazaars, which are common in third world nations start cropping up here, [[which they have recently), then maybe people will get the message.

That message, by the way, is that left to their own devices, private ANYTHING will stupidly crap in their own nest.

It's all about the 1 billion dollar golden parachutes, and 4 million dollar weekly salaries enjoyed by United Health Scare's CEO's.

[ccbatson]

Take it a step further on your own and go with a HSA which dials up the deductible to the point where the premium drops to an amount equal to, or less than the deductible. This way, if you use it all, it is a zero sum game. If you don't [[and most often you will not), you rollover the slush fund for deductibles to the next year and the net pay out is less...this process accumulates year to year, and you then can increase the deductible still higher [[lowering the premiums) and progressively save more over time.

Eventually, you can pear down the policy to a catastrophic only policy [[relatively dirt cheap) and fall back on the accumulated slush fund for everything short of catastrophe.

[Lorax]

Take it a step further on your own and go with a HSA which dials up the deductible to the point where the premium drops to an amount equal to, or less than the deductible. This way, if you use it all, it is a zero sum game. If you don't [[and most often you will not), you rollover the slush fund for deductibles to the next year and the net pay out is less...this process accumulates year to year, and you then can increase the deductible still higher [[lowering the premiums) and progressively save more over time.

Eventually, you can pear down the policy to a catastrophic only policy [[relatively dirt cheap) and fall back on the accumulated slush fund for everything short of catastrophe.

I have been informed of this strategy before, and it may be effective, but makes alot of work for me to keep up on it, since the definitions of "catastrophic" and "health maintenance" change year to year.

It's understanding the legalese in the fine print that makes it so difficult to know what to do, and to have to pay an attorney to figure it out is unacceptable. It will be easier to use the emergency room in years to come and claim indigence.

[Stosh]

Take it a step further on your own and go with a HSA which dials up the deductible to the point where the premium drops to an amount equal to, or less than the deductible. This way, if you use it all, it is a zero sum game. If you don't [[and most often you will not), you rollover the slush fund for deductibles to the next year and the net pay out is less...this process accumulates year to year, and you then can increase the deductible still higher [[lowering the premiums) and progressively save more over time.

Eventually, you can pear down the policy to a catastrophic only policy [[relatively dirt cheap) and fall back on the accumulated slush fund for everything short of catastrophe.

HSA's only are allowed if your deductables are high enough initially. This model is great, under the assumption that you have the money to piss away.
From the Consumers Union website:

Recent experience with health savings accounts and high deductible health insurance policies has confirmed what economists and policy analysts have predicted for the past decade: In a voluntary health insurance marketplace where lawmakers have let the free market write the rules, encouraging high deductible policies combined with tax favored savings accounts, benefits the rich and increases the financial burden on the sick. It is time for Congress to call a halt to this misguided policy and turn its attention to health system reform that will provide guaranteed coverage to all Americans, while improving the quality of care in the system and constraining costs.

Concerns about High Deductible Health Insurance and Health Savings Accounts

Variation of risk in health insurance markets.

The health insurance market is different from the market for other consumer goods. When a car manufacturer sells a car, the seller has no reason to care who is buying it: age, sex, health status, income simply do not matter. Health insurance is a different kind of market. Not only do sellers care very much about the nature of the buyer, if allowed they create detailed underwriting rules that discriminate against buyers by design – denying coverage to the sick, excluding any pre-existing conditions [[for which the need for care and coverage is greatest), and charging higher premiums to the older and sicker.
The key economic factor that makes health insurance markets different from markets for other consumer goods and services is the tremendous variation in risk of the population. A small percent of the population [[regardless of whether you consider the young or the old, the rich or the poor, males or females) tends to account for a large part of health care expenditures. Most people are healthy and incur very small if any costs. Consumers take their own health risk profile into account when deciding about what type of policy [[and deductible) they should seek. Insurers take consumers’ health risk profile into account when deciding whether to provide coverage.
Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey [[MEPS) [[with adjustments by the Lewin microsimulation model) reveals the extent of variation that exists. While these numbers are from 2000, there is no doubt that the variation continues to exist. While average health care costs [[of those with employer based coverage) was $2628 in 2000, those with spending in the lowest fifth incurred just $30 of health care expenditures. Those in the top tenth of spending incurred costs of $16,710.1 This variation of risk goes to the heart of the need to find a way to spread costs broadly in order to keep costs affordable to those at the highest risk level.

Erosion of "Choice" of Low-Deductible Coverage. Employer-based coverage and government financed programs such as Medicare spread the risks and costs across broad populations. Because of the variation of risks, and different selections made by people of different health status, high deductible plans can not exist in the long-term in a marketplace that offers low-deductible plans as well. Ultimately, low-deductible plans will be driven out of the market, with "premium spirals" driving out comprehensive coverage. This is the hidden secret that the supporters of high deductible tax breaks tend to leave off of their talking points: Instead of increased choice in the marketplace of health insurance options, over time, the "choice" of high deductible coverage is likely to crowd out low deductible choices.2 It is particularly troubling that this basic change in the health insurance marketplace could take place without explicit debate and consideration of the full long-term implications and elimination of true choice.
When consumers are given a choice between high and low deductible coverage, a small percent will elect the high deductible option. People with high incomes and low health care costs are most likely to be attracted to the high deductible/HSA option [[and relatively low premium). It is ironic that the choice that most consumers want may well not be available to them as the market plays out over several years.

Benefit to the Healthy and the Wealthy from Tax Encouragement of High-Deductible Health Insurance. Tax policy now encourages high deductible health insurance policies by making contributions to health savings accounts tax deductible. This tax policy, combined with high deductible health coverage, has been predicted to appeal disproportionately to the healthy and the wealthy.
• The healthy benefit because they have the new prospect of a tax-sheltered investment in which money is not taxed when put in or when withdrawn [[i.e., not needed by the healthy to cover health care costs).

• The wealthy, with higher tax brackets, benefit disproportionately because the tax savings are larger at higher tax brackets than lower tax brackets.

A recent study by the Government Accounting Office3 found that people with Health Savings Accounts [[HSAs) in 2005 had an average adjusted gross income of $139,000 compared with $57,000 for other filers. This is an alarmingly high differential and should be a wake-up call to policy-makers for the validation that it provides to the concerns that opponents [[such as Consumers Union) of this policy have expressed over the last decade. In addition, a study conducted at the University of Minnesota found that the average income of employees who enrolled in high deductible coverage was 48 percent higher than the income of employees who did not.

A study conducted of 4,680 Humana employees found that enrollees in high-deductible policies were "significantly healthier on every dimension measured." 5

Distraction from the Issue of the Uninsured and Underinsured. The potential for health savings accounts and encouragement of high deductible insurance to split the healthy from the sick and the rich from the poor is alarming. But of even greater concern is the distraction they pose to turning the full attention of policy makers and the health policy community toward the challenge of providing true health care security to all. We should be moving full-steam toward the goal of guaranteed, quality, affordable health care for all consumers, not spending countless resources creating an analyzing new models that promise to split the healthy from the sick, shift costs to the sick, and expand the inequities in our system.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pdf/HSA-test-051408.pdf

[Lorax]

Health Savings Accounts were what the Tushies proposed in their drive to destroy Social Security.

They don't work, and since that is apparently what Batts was saying would work for me, sorry, but the monies just aren't there anymore.

When things were better in the economy, we could somewhat justify spending so much on insurance we rarely used. Not anymore. When incomes are off as much as they are, something's got to give.

People have been tapping their homes for loans to pay for the increased costs for years now, and I could see this coming as far back as the early 90's.

Now the bill is due, and there's no money. Corporate America crapped in it's own nest, and now has to sniff the steaming pile for a couple of decades going forward.

We ain't spending no mo money, folks.

[Gistok]

If the docs are hurting so bad, what do they do after the office closes, the Benz is in hock, the Farmington Hills estate, Grand Cayman time share and Florida condo ... all that is gone: poof.

Do they all get jobs at 7-11? Rite-Aid? The Health Department?

Gnome... they have a face saving backup plan...

[ccbatson]

Health savings plans have nothing to do with Social Security...that was a proposal to privatize SS [[a darn good idea BTW).

[Lorax]

Health savings plans have nothing to do with Social Security...that was a proposal to privatize SS [[a darn good idea BTW).

Yes, savings plans have everything to do with Tush's disastrous plan to privatize SS. Same idea as the dumbed-down co-ops. Nobody is buying the crapola here.

[ccbatson]

In that they both are efforts to increase capitalism, I suppose they share that...otherwise, they are apples and oranges.

[Lorax]

In that they both are efforts to increase capitalism, I suppose they share that...otherwise, they are apples and oranges.

No, just different species of apple.

Both are designed to destroy the current system. Can you imagine the depth of the depression we'd find ourselves in if Tush was successful in destroying SS?

All the losses on Wall Street we suffered, can you imagine the outcome? You'd have seniors in the streets demanding Tush's head. He's lucky it didn't have a prayer.

Now it will never happen, guaranteed in our lifetimes.

[ccbatson]

Agreed...destroy socialism ASAP.

[Lorax]

Ah, privatizing Social Security is what will never happen in our lifetimes, cheers!

[ccbatson]

Either we privatize it, or watch it go belly up...if the latter, beneficiaries will get nothing. With the former, they have the potential of far exceeding the performance as far as return on investment [[well, return on stolen money really, but...) is concerned.