PDA

View Full Version : Repeal of Obamacare



Zigzagman
1-5-11, 5:50pm
As someone that really supported and pushed for Single Payer/Public Option (multiple political rallies at the Capital in Austin) I admittedly was disappointed with parts of Obamacare. We came so close but just couldn't get a few conservatives to help. I'm not sure anyone even knows what Obamacare is really about - much less ready to repeal it.

Most of the benefits don't really kick in until 2014. What the hell is up with pushing legislation off 5 years? I would love to see real alternatives to our present healthcare system. Even in Obamacare we still refuse to negotiate for better drug prices. What is that all about?

I personally hope that now that the "Grey Ones" have taken back over at least part of government maybe we can talk about how to deal with the most rapidly rising expense that most Americans have to face.

How about we join the rest of the western civilization and care about something other than money....maybe people! cow-hi

Repeal Obamacare....... for what?

Peace

Tenngal
1-5-11, 7:18pm
just the fact that it is called Obamacare is an insult. Many people worked long and hard to have this passed and I cannot see completely doing away with it. There is a whole generation of young adults with no healthcare. Out of college and no jobs to be found and especially no jobs with healthcare. Same for those kids age 18 and over who cannot stay on their parent's insurance. If you are lucky enough to have insurance through work, you'd better not get a serious illness because the insurance companies have alwayes decided when to cut us off. If other countries can have healthcare for all, then we can do it. I'd say that all the lobbying by drug companies and healhcare orgainizations have brought about most of the crap we are hearing about the 1st goal of the newly elected officials in DC. As long as corporate greed is in control of our politicians in America we will not be joining the rest of western civilization, not for long anyway.

Crystal
1-5-11, 8:30pm
<not speaking as a mod or admin> I'm not sure we will ever have the health care that other countries do. We are really a center-right country, and the center-right viewpoint is less government, lower taxes, more security and military, and less paying for stuff for other people. If they want to pay for charity for someone, they'll do it on their own or through a charity organization. And that is the bottom line. The fact that you or I are willing to share through our taxes to improve the well being of others is moot. Center-right is the majority here, they ain't willing, and that's that. The divide is deep. I don't think we liberals will ever hold the majority in Congress for very long. We can move elsewhere, or we can get used to the facts.

Alan
1-5-11, 9:33pm
I'm not sure we will ever have the health care that other countries do. We are really a center-right country, and the center-right viewpoint is less government, lower taxes, more security and military, and less paying for stuff for other people. If they want to pay for charity for someone, they'll do it on their own or through a charity organization. And that is the bottom line. The fact that you or I are willing to share through our taxes to improve the well being of others is moot. Center-right is the majority here, they ain't willing, and that's that. The divide is deep. I don't think we liberals will ever hold the majority in Congress for very long. We can move elsewhere, or we can get used to the facts.

I read somewhere that the cost of medical care for US citizens equals over $7000 per person, per year. If the government is to cover that cost through taxation, could we maintain a progressive tax structure, or would we need to revert to a severely regressive system, or, would we just redistribute someone else's earnings and wealth?

Speaking from a center right position, I'd say that it's not as simple as saying that we're not willing to help others, after all, we're the most generous political demographic in the country. It's actually that we believe in providing an environment of equal opportunity for all rather than equal outcome. It's sort of an offshoot of the tried and true "Give a man a fish....teach a man to fish..." philosophy, or the parental concept of tough love.

We provide social programs to ensure that everyone has medical care. The only problem that I can see is that the minority of people without private medical insurance will have difficulty getting the government to pay for their care until they've exhausted their own assets. I'll agree that's unfortunate. Is the divide really that deep?

freein05
1-5-11, 10:33pm
Health care costs need to be brought under control. In the past few years overall inflation has been 0 or less and health care inflation has been about 10%. Medicare will go broke if health care expenses continue to increase at the rate it has been. Private insurance will also be unaffordable. The health care insurance bill was a start maybe not a good one but a start. 30 million people not insured and I think millions more every month losing their insurance is not a small number.

Crystal
1-5-11, 11:11pm
Is the divide really that deep?

I'll bet it is to WJSimon and her daughter.

peggy
1-5-11, 11:17pm
I read somewhere that the cost of medical care for US citizens equals over $7000 per person, per year. If the government is to cover that cost through taxation, could we maintain a progressive tax structure, or would we need to revert to a severely regressive system, or, would we just redistribute someone else's earnings and wealth?

Speaking from a center right position, I'd say that it's not as simple as saying that we're not willing to help others, after all, we're the most generous political demographic in the country. It's actually that we believe in providing an environment of equal opportunity for all rather than equal outcome. It's sort of an offshoot of the tried and true "Give a man a fish....teach a man to fish..." philosophy, or the parental concept of tough love.

We provide social programs to ensure that everyone has medical care. The only problem that I can see is that the minority of people without private medical insurance will have difficulty getting the government to pay for their care until they've exhausted their own assets. I'll agree that's unfortunate. Is the divide really that deep?

Equal opportunity without equal outcome. Kind of a nice way of saying, I got mine, to hell with you!
Teaching a man to fish is fine except when there aren't any fish in the pond.
I guess I could REPEAT the fact that government sponsored health care isn't a case of sucking the government dry, but really the ideal situation of EVERYBODY pays into a system EVERYBODY will need eventually. See, everyone pays. The responsible thing to do. But, republicans aren't into responsibility so much. They aren't the party of responsibility, as it turns out. I guess i could repeat the fact that most people, as in the majority of Americans, kind of like the provisions of the new health care, even though it doesn't go far enough. I could repeat these things, but I'm tired and you all aren't listening anyway.

So I'll be like Oprah...or Sarah. :0 You get a Death Panel! :0 And you get a Death Panel! :0 And you get a Death Panel!

Zigzagman
1-6-11, 12:33am
I think the present charade in Washington is just another political show by the "center-right". The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will not be repealed. In fact as I said earlier it hasn't even started yet for the most part. The individual mandate, Medicaid expansion, creation of health insurance exchanges, and prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions and basing premiums on health status – will take effect in 2014. Hopefully any reform will be in an effort to improve this legislation rather than kill it. I suspect that these battles in Washington and the Federal courts will continue through 2012 and the next election cycle.

US is a center-right country? I think a majority of citizens would embrace "Medicare for all" or maybe even just equal access to the same healthcare of government employees. We've done the progressive before. We addressed slavery, workers' rights, created a social safety net, and implemented civil rights laws. At the moment of crisis following the 1929 stock market crash we didn't say, "Whoa, everybody just settle down now. We don't want to do anything radical; we're a center-right country, after all."

I view our country as a progressive train that continually travels forward. Sometimes it is slowed down by "conservatism" braking, sometimes it speeds up with liberal energy, but very rarely, if ever, does it go in reverse. In the meantime the Conservatives are doing a great job of convincing Americans to vote against their own self interests.

Peace

Rosemary
1-6-11, 9:38am
I also fail to see how repeal is possible.
Given that, I really wish the GOP would focus its energy on something productive instead of just thumbing its collective nose at the President, the Democrats, and all of its constituents who pay taxes to pay for them to be in office.

Dharma Bum
1-6-11, 10:47am
Equal opportunity without equal outcome. Kind of a nice way of saying, I got mine, to hell with you!

I was kind of hoping the tone would change a little on the move, but c'est la vie. Unequal outcomes are actually a good thing. If everyone was guaranteed the same outcome, why try? It becomes a race to the bottom. What’s your model for this? Soviet Russia? Communist farm communes? How'd those work out? Stick to the goal of providing equal opportunity and rounding off the harsh edges of competition and your position is much more reasonable.





I could REPEAT the fact that government sponsored health care isn't a case of sucking the government dry, but really the ideal situation of EVERYBODY pays into a system EVERYBODY will need eventually. See, everyone pays.

I'm in favor of a universal system but even I think this is a weak argument. We all need food. We all need shelter. We want everyone to have healthcare. Some people have trouble getting food, shelter or heathcare. But the solution isn't then to tax everyone and give them government provided food, shelter and healthcare. At least not here yet. We've taken the approach of helping people get housing or food through payments that allow them to access the larger system. When we have provided those benefits directly, the outcomes are questionable. Think public housing projects. As someone who wants to see everyone have access to care, even I think this is where the pro-universal coverage advocates have dropped the ball. It's not enough to say you think everyone should be covered. If you want to provide food and shelter, is it better to have the government give food stamps and section 8 vouchers, or is it better to build public housing projects and nationalize grocery stores? And what does that tell you about healthcare? If healthcare is different, you have to do a better job of explaining why if you want to garner support for universal coverage, which is what I think Obama failed to do in any compelling way.

Poco Pelo
1-6-11, 10:54am
I also fail to see how repeal is possible.
Given that, I really wish the GOP would focus its energy on something productive instead of just thumbing its collective nose at the President, the Democrats, and all of its constituents who pay taxes to pay for them to be in office.
Speaking as a "conservative", straightening out the mess of that heathcare bill, is productive. i think they are quite cooperative with the president compared to the Dem controlled house was the last one.



Good to see you back Zig !

Zigzagman
1-6-11, 11:02am
I think we all have a little socialism in us. Even though we have been told it is evil since birth.:D

There are some services that must be owned or regulated by government for the common good, even if they are not as profitable as they could be or are run at a financial loss. Privatization and deregulation are only good when competition and cost of services is low enough that the public would pay lower prices than as a government owned business.

There are some services that must be socialized for the benefit of all. Otherwise we would live in a country like this:

- Police only help those who pay fees (i.e. The poor get no justice)
- Schools have fees the parents must pay (the poor get no education)
- No regulation of food production (raw foods could contain pesticides and processed foods contain poisonous chemicals)
- No regulation of medicine (untested and unproven drugs are sold for exorbitant prices)
- Private for profit militias can be built (Blackwater) get government contracts, and have no legal accountability to people they kill or injure
- No worker safety rules; you can be forced to work in unsafe conditions, fired without just cause, docked wages for unjust reasons, etc.

To this list let's add-
+ Medical care is solely dependent on your own income, no health insurance, and doctors can charge what they want

For me we should be working toward what is best for everyone in our society. Sometimes old ideology is hard to change but I think we have matured enough as a nation to accept this change and we would all be better off for it. Let's join the rest of the world community instead of fighting it so much.

Peace

pcooley
1-6-11, 12:41pm
I, too, was disappointed that the universal health care option did not go through, but the health care bill does address several problems that needed to be addressed. Of course, the cost of healthcare is the big problem. Why do medications cost so much? Why are people so inclined to allow themselves to become so out of shape as to need expensive health care? Why do we have a system with so many expensive unnecessary procedures and tests?

Personally, beyond taking good care of myself, I try to avoid the health care system as much as I can. However, as an asthmatic, I'm saddled with having to keep at least some medication around.

I think we need to define a low level of universal health care. Do we need to pay for everyone with a headache to get a cat scan? No. But I would love to think that my tax money provided treatment for broken bones, chronic illnesses, alcoholism, infections that don't go away on their own, etc.

We will, as a nation, be forced to deal with the cost of health care at some point. People can't keep going into debt in order to follow their doctor's advice.

freein05
1-6-11, 2:18pm
The Republicans say they have a better medial insurance plan but do not have it ready. I would guess this is just talk. If they had a plan they should present it along with the repeal of the current health care plan. Maybe their plan is better and I would even support it but not knowing what it is makes it hard to support.

Any plan even a Republican plan will cause a lot of negative debate.

Alan
1-6-11, 2:24pm
Maybe their plan is better and I would even support it but not knowing what it is makes it hard to support.



As I recall, the former Speaker of the House told us we had to approve the current health care bill before we could find out what was in it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

peggy
1-6-11, 3:44pm
As I recall, the former Speaker of the House told us we had to approve the current health care bill before we could find out what was in it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Yea, you don't watch Fox News do you Alan. ;)

Well, the fact that we get all of 5 seconds of this speech tells me, and it should tell you, that there is probably more to this. Kind of how Fox will show a clip of Obama saying "I hate kids.." When the whole sentence is "I hate kids shows that tell them to be bad" or something like that. They tend to do that a lot.

We knew quite a lot of what was going to be in it, if we just paid attention. And to give you a hint, it wasn't death panels.:sick:

Alan
1-6-11, 4:01pm
Yea, you don't watch Fox News do you Alan. ;)

Well, the fact that we get all of 5 seconds of this speech tells me, and it should tell you, that there is probably more to this. Kind of how Fox will show a clip of Obama saying "I hate kids.." When the whole sentence is "I hate kids shows that tell them to be bad" or something like that. They tend to do that a lot.

We knew quite a lot of what was going to be in it, if we just paid attention. And to give you a hint, it wasn't death panels.:sick:

To be honest, I didn't realize that was a fox news clip. If I picked up a link from C-Span would that be better?

If you think there's something more to the context than was presented in the clip, I'd be happy to hear it, along with your example of how Fox News shows a clip of Obama saying "I hate kids...".

I mean, we all know how you feel about Fox, but they had nothing to do with what she said, or the context in which she said it. That strawman has been beaten to death.

Edited to add:

How about this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIFbfGRkpGw

peggy
1-6-11, 4:12pm
[QUOTE=Dharma Bum;1895]I was kind of hoping the tone would change a little on the move, but c'est la vie. Unequal outcomes are actually a good thing. If everyone was guaranteed the same outcome, why try? It becomes a race to the bottom. What’s your model for this? Soviet Russia? Communist farm communes? How'd those work out? Stick to the goal of providing equal opportunity and rounding off the harsh edges of competition and your position is much more reasonable."



Wow! You do know this is a discussion about health care, right? We're not talking about dog races or who gets the cadillac and who gets the clunker.
Unequal outcomes are a good thing? Really? Perhaps it's good population control. Health care for those who can afford it and everyone else, well, tough. You don't have the good fortune, or your not smart enough or whatever to make enough money so you don't really deserve good health care.
See, no one is wanting to guarantee equal OUTCOMES, just equal OPPORTUNITY. In a dog race, outcomes are different for each dog, but they all start out from the same gate.

Maybe that's the question. Do you really believe there are a large number of people out there who DON'T deserve good health care?

See, I don't really believe republicans want people to get sick and die. Well, maybe some do, but not the majority. But I think most feel that if people wanted health care really really bad they COULD get it. That maybe they just aren't trying hard enough. But that's not the case. You know how expensive it is. Hundreds of dollars every month. Not everyone has a white collar job with decent health care, and the funds to pay for it. Now throw in a sick kid. One with a pre-existing condition, so of course you can't get care even if you wanted to.

I just don't understand how people can not understand this. Best...er, Ziggy is right. There simply are things the government has to take care of in a modern, civilized society.

Tenngal
1-6-11, 6:10pm
hey Alan, FOX news is evil................

Alan
1-6-11, 6:41pm
hey Alan, FOX news is evil................
Yes, I've heard that. Can't remember where.....

http://www.lefttoright.net/images/fox_is_evil.gif

Dharma Bum
1-6-11, 6:56pm
Do you really believe there are a large number of people out there who DON'T deserve good health care?



Personally I'm with Paul, but I think reasonable people can differ over where the line is:


I think we need to define a low level of universal health care. Do we need to pay for everyone with a headache to get a cat scan? No. But I would love to think that my tax money provided treatment for broken bones, chronic illnesses, alcoholism, infections that don't go away on their own, etc.


Everyone should have housing, but I don't think everyone's housing needs to be equal. Same with healthcare.

Zigzagman
1-6-11, 7:41pm
Everyone should have housing, but I don't think everyone's housing needs to be equal. Same with healthcare.

I think maybe you have hit on something...if we could provide for a minimum level of healthcare, much like social security or medicare, then that would solve the problem for those that insist on being able to get better/the best of care for themselves at a premium. I doubt that many people would disagree with that philosophy - until they were about to die - then that is when the death panels would kick in!!

Peace

Tenngal
1-7-11, 9:25am
I agree that Medicare is a good model. And, I do not want to be kept alive in a nursing home. When I get to that point, I hope they LET me die. When I reach the place where I can get no better and cannot take care of my basic needs I do not want to be alive.

iris lily
1-7-11, 10:30am
You need to make your wishes known and train up your family or whoever is acting in that stead that's what you want. Your phrase "I hope" makes you sound as though you have no say in the matter. You do.

Tenngal
1-7-11, 11:30am
thank you, Iris Lily, good point

Gregg
1-7-11, 11:50am
Back to the most basic of policy questions... Is there any reason expanding Medicare would not accomplish almost all of the goals of healthcare reform, probably for less cost? I'm starting to like pcooley's suggestion regarding a basic universal plan.

goldensmom
1-7-11, 12:45pm
.

I'm not sure anyone even knows what Obamacare is really about - much less ready to repeal it.




I wish I had access to the entire bill, the time to read it, the smarts to comprehend it and then the ability to give a informed opinion but all I know is what I gather from the opinions and insights of others. Frustrating!!

ApatheticNoMore
1-7-11, 1:23pm
hey Alan, FOX news is evil................

Evil really has nothing to do with anything. More like just absurdly biased. Personally, I prefer blogs, non MSM websites, and oh yes non-fiction books.

Crystal
1-7-11, 2:19pm
According to the L.A. Times, repealing the health reform bill would cost $230 billion. Implementing the cut-as-you-go policy might be a bit sticky in this case.

Dharma Bum
1-7-11, 3:46pm
I'm starting to like pcooley's suggestion regarding a basic universal plan.

That's what that Yossarian guy was pushing on the old forum. Basic universal care, either through a single payer system, a voucher/subsidy arrangement or a tax credit for opting out, but preserving the private market for services above the basic level. The fear is of course the basic level keeps getting increased unitl it crowds out the private market so all we have left is the postal service running healthcare. You'd like to think we're smarter than that but....

peggy
1-7-11, 3:57pm
Yes, I've heard that. Can't remember where.....

http://www.lefttoright.net/images/fox_is_evil.gif

Or maybe they are just plain stupid!
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370183/january-06-2011/bill-o-reilly-proves-god-s-existence---neil-degrasse-tyson

And O'Reilly is supposed to be the SMART one at Fox!

peggy
1-7-11, 4:20pm
That's what that Yossarian guy was pushing on the old forum. Basic universal care, either through a single payer system, a voucher/subsidy arrangement or a tax credit for opting out, but preserving the private market for services above the basic level. The fear is of course the basic level keeps getting increased unitl it crowds out the private market so all we have left is the postal service running healthcare. You'd like to think we're smarter than that but....


Yes, basic health care for everyone. That's all we want. A level start. Everyone pays so every one's premiums are lower as you have the power of group. Get basic health care away from jobs as in don't tie it to a particular job, or tie the business owner's hands. That makes it better for the independent business owner who is simply self employed. Gives him the benefit of a group plan as well.
And yes, keep the free market plans (as if they would go away) for those who want them. If you want to be ensured a private room in a private hospital, then you can pay for that. But we could all rest better at night knowing there is at least a safe, comfortable medical ward for everyone who needs it. :sick: And no, overall health care would not suffer for it, that's just an insult to all the doctors and nurses out there. They really don't use rusty scalpels in the city hospitals. ;)
(waving the flag) This is the greatest country on earth. There is no reason we can't make it even better! Every painful step forward we have made, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc...has come with dire warnings about it being the death bell for America, the sky is falling doom! doom! doom! And every step has made us a better nation.
We are the government and the government is us. We can do this. We have the start with the reform we got. Now let's tweak it to be just the right fit.
I'll start. First and foremost, I'm liking being able to keep my young adult children on our plan (which we PAY for, as it turns out) till they turn 26. Whew! Our youngest just graduated and of course isn't employed yet, but has been having thyroid problems.

Mangano's Gold
1-7-11, 5:22pm
Back to the most basic of policy questions... Is there any reason expanding Medicare would not accomplish almost all of the goals of healthcare reform, probably for less cost? I'm starting to like pcooley's suggestion regarding a basic universal plan.
No, there just wasn't enough support for this type of single-payer option. There was even talk about dropping the Medicare age down to 55 but it couldn't get through the Senate.

Here is a key (but not only) sticking point: Under Obamacare, and I'm simplifying a little, the increased tax burden on the public is limited to the incremental cost of getting nearly everyone covered. The bulk of insurance premiums will still be paid for by employers and employees and individual purchasers. Under Medicare-for-all, those premiums largely disappear and are replaced by some sort of tax. So the "cost" of the legislation would go from ~$100 billion annually to maybe $800 billion annually.

Although this swapping of private payments for taxes would be a wash to most Americans, it would be politically impossible to sell. Obamacare cleverly accomplishes nearly the same thing, though, but at much less of a "cost".

kib
1-7-11, 6:34pm
My simplistic sticking point continues to be this: If I understand it, under the current scheme we're being forced to pay for profit insurers for both our own insurance and that of the uninsured. Every time I think about this my jaw drops. The mandatory insurance clause was only truly relevant if we were talking about single-payer, and somehow that part got kept when single-payer disappeared? Good grief and please pass the sandpaper. >:(

Under the single-payer option, we'd still be liable for the well being of all citizens whether we want to be or not, but with the profit motive (theoretically) removed. Straight up, would I prefer to give my money to a government (theoretically) held to financial culpability with (theoretical) NFP standing, or a third party who will pocket as much as they can? No brainer, personally. Not only does this legislation seem unconstitutional on face, it gives profiteering insurance companies legal power to hold our lives for ransom. Awesome. :doh:I will hold out hope that this will encourage competition between companies that contains cost, but what I think is a lot more likely is an agreement among companies of where to set rates so they all make a nice fat profit off us.

ETA: with a gun to my head I'd choose this over allowing people to be dropped, turned away and otherwise unable to obtain healthcare. But ... it still sucks. My 2 cents.

Zigzagman
1-19-11, 7:35pm
By a vote of 245-189, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the new healthcare reform law, a long-expected action that is seen as largely symbolic since leaders of the Democratic-controlled Senate have vowed to block repeal.

The vote was preceded by a day and a half of debate on the measure, known as the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." The two-page bill would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- signed by President Obama in March 2010 -- and all other laws changed by the reform law "as if such Act had never been enacted." It would also repeal the healthcare provisions in the companion bill, known as the reconciliation act, that altered some parts of the main law.


It will be interesting where we go from here. Is this merely a political ploy by the right or will we improve healthcare for everyone? I hope so - it would sure be a good start to really working together for the American public.



I think the idea of repealing without some sort of legitimate replacement will be a "BIG" negative for most Americans.


Peace

bae
1-19-11, 7:38pm
Given that there's no chance of this passing the Senate, or Obama signing it, what a total waste of time this stunt was.

freein05
1-19-11, 8:41pm
Given that there's no chance of this passing the Senate, or Obama signing it, what a total waste of time this stunt was.

+1

creaker
1-19-11, 8:42pm
Maybe it was the media, but it didn't seem like the House has done anything yet beyond waiting to push this bill through. And it sounds like they have no agenda beyond making Obamacare fail.

We've had a similar system in MA for a while now (Romneycare?) So far it's working - 97% covered under health insurance - and for me at least (employer provided healthcare), completely transparent.

flowerseverywhere
1-19-11, 9:45pm
Given that there's no chance of this passing the Senate, or Obama signing it, what a total waste of time this stunt was.

no, it will serve to get these people re-elected which is what it is all about. Who cares that my Health insurance premium increased 68% last year? Who cares that all day long TV had ads from attorneys urging people to call about nursing home abuse, drug law suits etc and malpractice premiums are so high physicians have to cover that expense? Who cares that dedicated really smart people go to medical school and after years of hard work end up with $200,000 or more of loans just to get educated.

The whole system stinks.

Gregg
1-20-11, 11:04am
Yup, really nothing but CYA and jockeying for position. Hey, less than 2 years till November!

Rogar
1-20-11, 11:31pm
I might be slighty slow in the savy of politics. I find it ironic that a reduction in our deficit has been identified as a top priority, yet the about first week into the new regime of the party change in the house is spent discussing and voting on an issue that has a widely known outcome and no chance of passing through the senate. A totally unproductive waste of time and salaries that wouldn't fly an inch in much of efficient private enterprise where the bottom line of profit is a survival issue. Regardless of whether one is for or against the issue.

Time to move forward, not sideways.

I guess Bea already said so much, just had to add another two cents.

iris lily
1-20-11, 11:46pm
I suppose you think that their reading of the Constituion was theatrics as well.Me, I liked the idea. It was just the thing to set up the new regiem, not that I expect anything to change, they are just politicians. And anyway the new narrative of the left wing media is that The American Public does not want Obamacare to be repealed. I heard that all over the radio the past couple of days. Good luck selling that one, I'm sur eyou can do it if you repeat it enough times, in unison.

loosechickens
1-21-11, 12:37am
Well, many polls have shown that a minority (I seem to remember one said 18%) think the whole bill should be repealed....certainly not a majority of the American people. And many polls have shown that if people are asked questions about actual things IN the bill, most approve of them, even if then the question is asked, "are you in favor of the health reform bill?" and they say "no".

Personally, I think it's been the misleading and downright inaccurate, dare I say deliberate untruths by the Republicans, such as the nonexistent "death panels" that have been repeated over and over until people think they are true. In the same way, that although the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says this bill will save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10-20 years, AND create jobs, the Republicans are still out there doing the misleading, even calling their repeal bill the repeal of the "job killing" health care bill.

As the provisions of the bill begin to take effect.......some important ones became effective this month, more and more people will be in support of it, and by the time it is fully implemented, tens of millions of people will have coverage that don't have coverage today, and hopefully, people with insurance won't find themselves facing bankruptcy as so many are doing today.

Is it a perfect bill? Of course not. We have a very imperfect health care system that cannot just be scrapped and have us start over, although that would probably be best to do. After all, when the people selling us the insurance have a direct conflict of interest, since they are in business to make a profit and their profit is reduced every time they cover a claim, their incentive is to provide as little coverage as possible, find every loophole to get out of paying, and look to the profits of themselves and their stockholders instead.

I always laugh at the people who don't want some "government official" making a decision as to whether they will be covered, yet are willing to leave that decision up to the people whose profits will be increased if they deny the claim, and decreased if they cover it. Yep.....you can REALLY trust THOSE people to have your best interests at heart.

Besides.....this whole repeal thing IS Kabuki theater, because it's not going any further. They can't get it through the Senate, and if they did, the President will veto it. So it's a huge waste of time and taxpayer money and they should be spending their time taking care of the nation's business instead. IMHO

Gregg
1-21-11, 9:24am
Well, many polls have shown that a minority (I seem to remember one said 18%) think the whole bill should be repealed....certainly not a majority of the American people.

As should be expected there is a wide variance of opinion depending on where you take a poll. A recent poll here in Nebraska, a fairly conservative state, showed 61% opposed to the healthcare bill, 28% in favor and 11% undecided. There are many that would simply dismiss places like Nebraska as a political backwater with a small and "dumbed down" voter base. The Tea Party is not strong here right now, but if an opinion like that were to persist people would start looking for alternatives.

LDAHL
1-21-11, 9:47am
I don’t think the vote was useless at all, from either a legislative or a political standpoint. It certainly provided an indication of the sense of the new House, and required every member to make their position a matter of record. It certainly makes the way clear for piecemeal fixes aimed at making the law less costly and intrusive. There are a number of tacks they can take there, as Karl Rove enumerated in a recent Wall street Journal editorial:
“A slew of recent polls also show that Americans favor replacing ObamaCare with sensible reforms that increase competition and choice, and thereby expand access and lower cost. For example, the Resurgent Republic poll showed voters support, by 70% to 23%, the ability to buy health insurance across state lines. They back proposals that would make it possible for workers to take their health insurance from job to job by 53% to 36%. And they believe frivolous lawsuits drive up health-care costs by 53% to 38%.

Other GOP initiatives—like allowing people to save more of their paychecks tax free for out-of-pocket medical expenses, and letting small businesses pool risk to get the same discounts that big companies get—are similarly popular. President Obama said after the midterm election results that "he'd be happy to consider . . . ideas for how to improve" health care. Fortunately, Republicans have a ready agenda with widespread public backing.”

There’s a lot that can be done to fix this law short of repealing it in it’s entirety. But this first vote was useful in establishing a starting position.

ApatheticNoMore
1-21-11, 12:16pm
I see no evidence that Obamacare was ACTUALLY good for much. When some insurance companies still propose rate increases of nearly 60% for the year, what the heck is the point??? I mean argue philosophy all you want (hey I do it too), but if this is what happens in the real world after the legislation has passed .... well you can't eat philosophy (nor can you afford to feed yourself and pay for medical care pretty soon it seems).

I mean ok maybe some people with preexisting conditions can now get insurance, but if an equal number of people are just plain priced out (and with 60% increases what other result is expected?), where is the win? Oh the win might come in 2014 or something, maybe, if it's not repealed etc. etc. - what a bunch of BS.

nearly 60% rate increases proposed:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/07/106327/delay-health-insurance-rate-increase.html

loosechickens
1-21-11, 12:35pm
"As should be expected there is a wide variance of opinion depending on where you take a poll. A recent poll here in Nebraska, a fairly conservative state, showed 61% opposed to the healthcare bill, 28% in favor and 11% undecided. There are many that would simply dismiss places like Nebraska as a political backwater with a small and "dumbed down" voter base. The Tea Party is not strong here right now, but if an opinion like that were to persist people would start looking for alternatives. " (Gregg)
----------------------------------------------------------
But, Gregg.....even in places like Nebraska, when the polling companies ask people about their feelings about specific things (that happen to be INCLUDED in that bill), an overwhelming number of them will approve of each thing, even when they turn around and answer "no" to the question, "do you approve of the new health care reform law?".

To me, it reflects several things.

One, there has been a HUGE amount of misinformation, scare tactics (death panels, etc.), etc. from those opposed to the bill.

Two, the benefits of the bill were phased in over a period of four years or so in order to give health insurance providers, states, etc., time to implement changes, etc., which means that to most people, they haven't seen any benefit as yet in their own circumstances.

Three, the Obama administration and the Democrats have been ABYSMAL in publicizing the contents of the bill, while the Republicans have really done an EXCELLENT job of marketing against it. My hat is off to the Republicans in their ability to market ideas in short, concise ways, to the American people. It's a skill badly needed by Democrats, who seem clueless in that ability.

and Fourth, most people don't realize what an absolute trajectory toward disaster our present health care system is on. Costs are rising at an astronomical rate, whether we have a health care reform law or not. This bill has made an attempt to bend the cost curve, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it will save hundreds of billions of dollars over time.

But the biggest of all of these things, to me, is that rather than just make a huge, unfunded giveaway, as the Bush administration did with the prescription drug plan, the Obama administration really took a "good government" stance on both cost savings and slow implementation for a better, more sustainable system, but get no credit for that. Because their abilities to market even a good thing are seriously lacking.

I don't think it's a great bill, and there are probably things in it that should be changed, and things that were necessary to have in it to get support from insurance companies, etc., but it's not the evil "march toward socialism" or any of the other things it's been painted, and I think that as people really come to understand the values of such things as not allowing insurance companies to drop you when you get sick, figuring out a way to cover the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions who cannot now get private insurance, allowing young people to remain on their parents' insurance until an older age, seeing that most every child in the U.S. is covered, giving assistance to small business in providing insurance for their employees, etc., it will have much more support.

I don't think we should make the perfect the enemy of the good, as the President is wont to say. This bill marked a major milestone in accomplishing something that no President had been able to do for half a century, actually make some changes that would help patients, managed to get support from health insurance companies, and actually got passed.

The thing that is funniest to me is that this health reform act, which is characterized by many Republicans today as a "march toward socialism", is LESS overreaching and very similar to plans put forth by Republicans in the past. Remember, even President Nixon was for having a program of universal health care.

loosechickens
1-21-11, 12:40pm
That getting people to want to "buy insurance across state lines" is just one example, to me, of the Republicans tremendous ability to sell anything, because that one is truly "lipstick on a pig".

If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.

People really don't even understand the first thing about this....it SOUNDS good to them, "increasing competition", "giving you more choices", etc.

Being sold down the river is a far more accurate description. The lobbyists for the health insurance companies practically salivate as they contemplate managing to get this through. JMHO

And "frivolous lawsuits" are a tiny, tiny almost invisible fraction of health care costs, and most states already have fairly stringent regulation of frivolous lawsuits already. What this REALLY is is an attempt to make sure that providers have a very low amount that is the maximum someone can get, regardless of how egregious the malpractice might be.

It's one more way they prey on peoples' fear of "somebody else getting something for nothing", but they don't realize that what they'd be "for" would be handing the companies and providers a whole LOT of something for nothing, giving them caps on damages, and eliminating any incentive to increase accuracy and care.

Alan
1-21-11, 3:00pm
That getting people to want to "buy insurance across state lines" is just one example, to me, of the Republicans tremendous ability to sell anything, because that one is truly "lipstick on a pig".

If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.



Since there are small variations in laws and governance between the states, should we just abolish the states to ensure that all things are equal?

Dharma Bum
1-21-11, 3:12pm
Besides.....this whole repeal thing IS Kabuki theater, because it's not going any further. They can't get it through the Senate, and if they did, the President will veto it. So it's a huge waste of time and taxpayer money and they should be spending their time taking care of the nation's business instead. IMHO

IMHO being the key, right? If 5 years ago Dems had taken any symbolic action to oppose the war in Iraq, I think some would have supported the symbolic action even if it had little chance of becoming policy. People simply view symbolic actions through their own biased prisms- ours are principled stands, theirs are kabuki theater.



If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.


Why would that happen? Would policies that are not subject to such laws be cheaper? So would you be giving people a choice as to whether they want to bear the costs of that regulation? So what are you assuming by claiming companies in the low regulation states would be the winners?

freein05
1-21-11, 5:39pm
Look out Louisiana every insurance company in the US will locate there if selling health insurance across state lines passes. It is almost impossible to get your own state to respond to a complaint against an insurance company how in the world do you think you would get a state regulator 3 thousand miles away to respond. What ever happened to states rights the Republicans are always bringing up.

Zigzagman
1-21-11, 8:00pm
Just as a side note that affects me personally - I "retired" in 2003 at age 52 with healthcare costs for a family plan of $121 per month for a 90/10 plan. Since then I have seen the cost rise dramatically in the last 8 years. My costs for the same family plan for 2011 are $1211.57 per month. The reason for this is primarily that they "decided" to drop dependent coverage in 2006.

Today I received a mail-out from my former employer that stated "The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has established a program under the "Affordable Care Act" to provide reimbursement of 80% of the portion of early retiree claims paid in the plan year for an individual that exceed $15,000 but are less than $90,000."

Even with this subsidy my coverage increased CY 2009 - CY 2010 from $893 - $1211 per month. The irony of this is that I managed a union workforce for 33 years (since my return from Vietnam in '70) and all of the union employees pay $359 per month for the same plan.

As a footnote in the mail-out were the following words - we as the plan sponsor must use the proceeds (i) to reduce its own health benefit premiums or health benefit costs. (ii) to reduce the health benefit premium contributions, co-payments, deductibles, coinsurance or other out-of-pocket costs (or any combination of these costs) of plan participants, or (iii) or combination of the costs (i) and (ii).

The company has not yet determined how it will use the Program proceeds but intends to use the proceeds in a manner consistent with the program requirements or , with respect to reimbursement of costs associated with health care benefits paid in a manner consistent with Program requirements.

I seriously doubt that this rant will mean anything but it just shows that we all have our health care issues with regard to "insurance".

Our government is just "too damn wimpy" to deal with the powers of capitalism unless we all unite for the common good of everyone!!

Peace

loosechickens
1-21-11, 11:46pm
Originally Posted by loosechickens
That getting people to want to "buy insurance across state lines" is just one example, to me, of the Republicans tremendous ability to sell anything, because that one is truly "lipstick on a pig".

If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since there are small variations in laws and governance between the states, should we just abolish the states to ensure that all things are equal? (Alan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, there are LARGE variations in laws and governance among the states, with some having strong consumer protection regulation of companies and some very lax, pretty much allowing companies to do what they like.

You, of all people, are usually arguing for STATES to have power, but in this case, by allowing this, you would take AWAY rights from states to regulate for their citizens, and require all states to accept that companies could cluster their headquarters in whatever states were willing to give them free rein and no protections for the consumer, thereby negating any ability of an individual state to regulate the insurance industry doing business in their state.

You'd be for the Federal government to take away that right from states, to regulate the insurance industry doing business in their state, and require them to accept companies being allowed to "shop around" to where they had the fewest regulations to protect customers to headquarter their businesses?

Talk about overreaching...........whatever happened to states' rights? I just can't imagine you being willing to give the Federal government that power, Alan. To override the states in that way. Or does the wish to give corporations free rein trump that?

Gregg
1-22-11, 7:50am
"As should be expected there is a wide variance of opinion depending on where you take a poll. A recent poll here in Nebraska, a fairly conservative state, showed 61% opposed to the healthcare bill, 28% in favor and 11% undecided. There are many that would simply dismiss places like Nebraska as a political backwater with a small and "dumbed down" voter base. The Tea Party is not strong here right now, but if an opinion like that were to persist people would start looking for alternatives. " (Gregg)
----------------------------------------------------------
But, Gregg.....even in places like Nebraska, when the polling companies ask people about their feelings about specific things (that happen to be INCLUDED in that bill), an overwhelming number of them will approve of each thing, even when they turn around and answer "no" to the question, "do you approve of the new health care reform law?".

One, there has been a HUGE amount of misinformation, scare tactics (death panels, etc.), etc. from those opposed to the bill.

People really don't even understand the first thing about this...

LC, I keep hearing, from the left, that anyone opposed to the healthcare bill is either a victim of misinformation or that the polls are skewed via selective questioning (is there a poll that's not?). I would gently offer a third possibility. There are some of us that are reasonably well informed and not taking part in a poll that are simply opposed to the bill. Plain and simple, we don't like the plan.

JMO, it's too expensive. The country just can't afford it as written. Not to sound cold and not saying we should do nothing, but I don't believe this is the best option. Other complaints? There are actually quite a few of us that think frivolous law suits are responsible for more than a "tiny, tiny" share of healthcare costs. There's a pretty substantial number of folks who think providing a basic universal plan for everyone with "Cadillac" (read: private) coverage available beyond that makes sense. There are practical people who would love to see coverage available that rivals our European allies, but are in opposition because they realize there is a lot of other baggage that comes with such a plan. Is it possible to please everyone? Nope. Is it possible to implement a plan with broader coverage and lower costs? Yes, I think it is possible and without scrapping most of what is already in place. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Now is as good a time as any to reform the reform into something we can afford, that makes sense and that protects the most citizens.

Alan
1-22-11, 2:19pm
Originally Posted by loosechickens
You, of all people, are usually arguing for STATES to have power, but in this case, by allowing this, you would take AWAY rights from states to regulate for their citizens, and require all states to accept that companies could cluster their headquarters in whatever states were willing to give them free rein and no protections for the consumer, thereby negating any ability of an individual state to regulate the insurance industry doing business in their state.

You'd be for the Federal government to take away that right from states, to regulate the insurance industry doing business in their state, and require them to accept companies being allowed to "shop around" to where they had the fewest regulations to protect customers to headquarter their businesses?

Talk about overreaching...........whatever happened to states' rights? I just can't imagine you being willing to give the Federal government that power, Alan. To override the states in that way. Or does the wish to give corporations free rein trump that?

I am a strong believer in states rights. I'm also a strong believer in the free market. It's not an either/or position.
I think we all benefit when you allow competition in commerce. Competition always brings down costs and lack of competition always raises them.

I see no reason to believe that states should not compete among themselves, whether it be for providing a climate condusive to business or to increase its attractiveness to potential residents.

But on top of that, I'm most interested in individual choice. Government, in it's desire to take care of us, should not limit our choices and we should resist it whether it's a state government or a federal government.

loosechickens
1-22-11, 2:23pm
Well, I think that you make good points, Gregg......although when you take apart the components of the plan as passed, and ask people about them individually, large majorities like them, but somehow when asked the question "are you for this health reform plan?" they say "no".

Some say no, certainly, because they really wanted a single payer government run plan, and some (me for example) like the idea of a basic level of health care insurance for all, and the ability to buy supplemental insurance for really major stuff.

The problem is that we had to come up with a plan that could get PASSED. Plenty of people have tried to deal with this issue over the years, but couldn't get anything passed. I don't think this bill is the greatest we could have come up with. But it was a bill that was able to overcome some of the industry opposition, tried to build on the system we already have, which couldn't just be upended and done away with.

If I felt that the Republicans were honestly INTERESTED in coming up with a good plan (this plan, after all, is very similar to other, Republican plans of the past), as opposed to just obstruction, I'd feel more patient with the attempts to "tinker" with it.

I am one who thinks that "just leaving it alone" would be disastrous. It's terrible for business, who has to go out in a global world to compete, wearing the concrete boots of having to provide health care to their employees, yet compete against all the other countries who have universal health care provided to all.

What do you make of the testimony of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that says that this plan is NOT going to cost money, but will, in actuality, SAVE hundreds of billions of dollars over a 10-20 year period.

It's not like we have a wonderful system as it is. We pay more than twice as much as any other developed country for our health care, yet have demonstrably worse results for the average citizen. We do great (if you have good insurance), doing cutting edge, catastrophic type stuff, but very poorly in providing basic health care, preventative health care and run of the mill access to many, many millions of our citizens.

I think that this plan that was passed, DID try to improve the system, take away some of the egregious examples of health insurance companies protecting large profits by denying care to large numbers of people, and worked with the system that is already in place.

let's see if the Republicans are really interested in "improving" or "destroying". I wish I had your faith in their intentions. But when I see this "buying insurance across state lines" that profit making health insurance company lobbyists have been salivating for for years, because it meant that they could headquarter in a state with the least regulation on them, yet mine customers from the entire country.....you KNOW that their aim wasn't to "provide better care". Give me a break. All it would mean is that we'd enter a race to the bottom to see who could deny the most claims with impunity, and continue to improve their bottom line.

So.....you said, "JMO, it's too expensive. The country just can't afford it as written". How does that square with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and numerous impartial analysts that say it will actually SAVE money. And, why do you think that we, wealthy country that we are, are unable to do what virtually every other developed democracy in the world has managed to do, provide good health care and universal access to it to all their citizens? Are we SO much less able than other countries to solve problems? And if so, why?

loosechickens
1-22-11, 3:13pm
"I am a strong believer in states rights. I'm also a strong believer in the free market. It's not an either/or position.
I think we all benefit when you allow competition in commerce. Competition always brings down costs and lack of competition always raises them.

I see no reason to believe that states should not compete among themselves, whether it be for providing a climate condusive to business or to increase its attractiveness to potential residents.

But on top of that, I'm most interested in individual choice. Government, in it's desire to take care of us, should not limit our choices and we should resist it whether it's a state government or a federal government. (Alan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hear you, Alan........it's hard sometimes, because some things do seem to be either/or.

In this case, it would be advocating that the Federal government assist the profit hungry insurance companies in being able to bypass states' attempts to provide "rules of the road" and consumer protections for their citizens, by not allowing companies to sell insurance in their states who did not meet basic levels of quality.

This "buying insurance across state lines" is one of the Holy Grail desires of the insurance company lobbyists. Who among us believes it's because these companies want to provide better care for their customers?

It's just hard for me to see how you could advocate giving the Federal government MORE power......I'm practically feeling faint at the very thought. :confused:

Alan
1-22-11, 3:34pm
It's just hard for me to see how you could advocate giving the Federal government MORE power......I'm practically feeling faint at the very thought. :confused:
I'm not in favor of giving any government more power. You misrepresent my stance.

freein05
1-22-11, 4:25pm
I find it hard to understand how allowing insurance to be sold across state lines would reduce cost. California and New York are two of the most costly states for health care services. I am leaving out insurance and just focusing on the cost of providing health care. That cost would not change if the insurance company was located in Mississippi. So the only way insurance could be cheaper is if the coverage was less and the insurance companies figured out ways to increase their profits by reducing the amount of money they pay out.

California has a regulation that an insurance company must pay out 80% of it's premiums to cover health care costs. So California allows an insurance company to make 20% profit. Not bad. Now Mississippi probably has no such regulation and an insurance company can pay out as little as it wants. The big question is how would a California resident get help in filing a complaint against a company in Mississippi.

The outrages cost of health care coverage must be addressed not just the cost of insurance. Unless the cost are addressed nothing will ever change and no party has put forward a proposal to address the cost of health care.

SoSimple
1-22-11, 6:21pm
But on top of that, I'm most interested in individual choice. Government, in it's desire to take care of us, should not limit our choices and we should resist it whether it's a state government or a federal government.

My choices for getting health coverage outside of a) spouse's Big Company coverage, or b) my own Big Company coverage (which I don't have anyway right now), are pretty damn limited. Explain to me how repealing the not-so-great healthcare bill enhances my individual choice.

loosechickens
1-22-11, 6:27pm
maybe I'm dense, Alan....and I apologize if I am. But in this case, you'd definitely be giving the Federal government the power to override the various state governments, so even if all the Feds are doing is just handing total freedom to avoid any kind of regulations to the health insurance companies, it's still giving the Federal government the power to do that. AND at the expense of the states, which I thought most conservatives were always against doing. So, is it o.k. to give the Federal government powers as long as it uses them to "unfetter" business?

Maybe because it would allow the companies free, unfettered capitalism makes it worthwhile to you. That's the only thing I can think of. I'm not meaning to mischaracterize what you're saying. Maybe I just don't understand. Honestly.

Free.....my understanding would be that CA would no longer have the POWER to regulate how much an insurance company had in profit or overhead. Companies would be allowed to center themselves in states with little or no regulation, and be allowed to sell their policies all over the country. That's why the insurance company lobbyists have spent so much time and money trying to sell this concept.

Look, I'm no expert on health care. I look around at other developed countries, other democracies and I see citizens all having access to health care. I see no families going bankrupt from medical bills, or not having access to needed care. The U.S. is surely as wealthy as many of these other countries. What is WRONG with us that we are having such a hard time solving this problem that others have managed to solve, at lower cost and are providing care to all? I just think we can do better. And this bill was at least an attempt to try to address the situation, within the system that we have, and the opposition won't even let it get underway, and are spending all their time trying to destroy it. Yet, don't seem to have come up with any real solutions of their own. Or are unwilling to admit that much that is in this health care bill are things that they, themselves, advocated for not too long ago.

SoSimple
1-22-11, 6:29pm
It may be getting off topic a little, but this article (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html) from Inc. magazine very nicely sums up the European attitude to taxes. In short "(w)hat we're doing when we are paying taxes is buying a product. So the question isn't how you pay for the product; it's the quality of the product." I agree.

I see no logic in the idea that a for-profit corporation is somehow more concerned about me getting the medications I need, at a price I can afford, in order to live a productive life, than the government would be. Or, for that matter, a well-regulated non-profit "insurance" system.

loosechickens
1-23-11, 12:27am
What an interesting article, SoSimple. Thank you for posting it. Who would have thought that there is a higher rate of entrepeneurs in Norway than here in the U.S.

Also interesting to see the levels of capitalism, business ownership, and other things in a country that we, here, see as that dreaded word "socialist", and somehow seem to believe that some socialism is an enemy of capitalism, as opposed to actually assisting it in many ways. I learned a lot in that article I didn't know, and it was well worth reading, even as long as it was.

Perhaps we'd be better off if, instead of constantly wanting taxes reduced, looked at it more as whether we are getting good value for them. Just as we should be asking whether we are getting "good value" for our health care expenditures.

Back onto the subject of health care reform....I found this in the article especially interesting (to get us back on topic a bit, hahaha)

"When I got back to the United States, I had a beer with Bjørn Holte, the CEO of bMenu, whom I'd first met in Oslo. It was early November—days after the congressional elections—and Holte had just arrived in New York City, where he is opening a new office. We talked about the commercial real estate market, the amazing cultural diversity in a city that has twice as many people as his entire country, and the current debate in the United States about the role of government. Holte was fascinated by this last topic, particularly the angry opposition to President Obama's health care reform package. "It makes me laugh," he says. "Americans don't understand that you can't have a functioning economy if people aren't healthy."

Holte's American subsidiary pays annual health care premiums that make his head spin—more than $23,000 per employee for a family plan—and that make the cost of employing a software developer in the United States substantially higher than it is in Norway, even after taxes. (For a full breakdown, see "Making Payroll.")"

Gregg
1-24-11, 9:49am
Perhaps we'd be better off if, instead of constantly wanting taxes reduced, looked at it more as whether we are getting good value for them.

Interesting for me LC because that is a statement that I can both agree with and at the same time it sends a little shiver down my spine. The shiver comes from the simple idea that people would probably be willing to hand more responsibility over to any level of government if that government suddenly started doing a good job managing money and providing services. While competence would be refreshing (and I'm really not that worried that we will see it any time soon), it's still an often debated slippery slope.

I absolutely agree that the government, on all levels, should be held accountable. Tax payers have a responsibility to monitor spending to make sure it is in line with their values. The problem with viewing government spending through the lens of a value investor comes when you start to look at the more subjective issues, and nothing is more subjective than healthcare. We all know that a healthy populace will ultimately generate more income (taxes) so it makes sense to keep citizens as healthy as possible, but in the US we can't mandate health. We can implement plans that pay for preventative screening or health club memberships or any other proactive measure, but most of the healthcare dollars spent will necessarily be for reactive procedures. The cost to provide a plan similar to the Norwegian company plan in the article would be $7 trillion, or about 1/2 of our GDP. I know not many people are suggesting we go quite that far, but even very basic universal coverage at a cost of $1500 per person/year still adds up to almost 1/2 a trillion dollars a year. Is it ethical to choose our option by simply calculating what the return on that investment would be?

loosechickens
1-24-11, 12:45pm
I still keep coming back to the fact that every other western democracy has solved this problem in ways superior to the results we've been getting.

Perhaps health care access is something that should be separated from the need to profit profits to shareholders.......

I don't pretend to have answers, only wonder why we don't look more at all the other countries who have managed to make sure all their citizens have access to care, and who spend less per capita than we do, accomplishing that.

No family in Canada has to worry or lie awake nights, afraid that they will go bankrupt because of medical bills, yet hundreds of thousands of OUR families will find themselves in that position, this year alone. Yet Canada is certainly a free country with a capitalist economy. Why are they and others able to solve these problems and we can't? What is wrong with US?

We're doing something wrong, yet we are like someone with their fingers stuck in their ears, yelling lalalalalalalalalala, rather than look at systems that are working, how they provide that for their citizens (not all are single payer government run systems.....Germany, for example has a system based on private providers). I've heard that France has an excellent system.

We, in this country, are so afraid of the bogeyman of "socialism", despite our embrace of public libraries, public schools and Medicare, all of which are socialist to the core, that we won't even consider looking at how all these other countries have worked with this problem.

Somehow, we prefer to put our health access in the hands of profit making insurance companies whose conflict of interest is extreme. It makes no sense to me.

bae
1-24-11, 1:11pm
Are there any significant demographic, cultural, or geographical differences between the USA and other Western democracies that might come into play? ...

loosechickens
1-24-11, 5:29pm
I don't know, bae. That's a good question. I went on "The Google" and found some comparisons between Canada and the U.S., since we are near neighbors, both have a capitalist based free economy, and all the Canadian friends we have seem much like ourselves, and found some interesting statistics, see below, but not sure if they explain the difference.

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm

but nothing that would explain to me why no families in Canada go bankrupt from medical bills and hundreds of thousands of families go bankrupt from medical bills in the U.S. every year. I couldn't find anything that really explained why everyone in Canada is covered by health care, and we have nearly fifty million people with no coverage, and many others with inferior and patchy coverage.

We spend 1.5 times as much on health care as Canada does, yet Canadian citizens have 3. 8% higher life expectancy. And of course, a population where everyone is covered and has access to health care, while many, many millions of U.S. citizens have little or no access at all.

Canada seems to be a creditor nation and we are a debtor nation, but don't know what effect that might have.

Canada has a much higher rate of immigration. While the actual number of immigrants is higher in the U.S., as expressed as a per capita basis, Canada's rate is twice that of the U.S.

Honestly, to me, the clue seems to be that Canada doesn't seem to have served up its citizenry to the benefit of profit hungry corporations that seem to control our access to health care, and have the conflict of interest implied between profits to stockholders and coverage of patients. But, maybe that's just me.

What do you see as the reasons why Canadians do not have to fear bankruptcy from a major illness and so many millions of our citizens do? How are our two countries so very different?

To me, it seems more of a "social ethics" question. Canadians seem to believe that health care and access to it is a normal human right that should be available to all, regardless of whether they are rich or poor or anywhere in between. And we seem to feel that it's "every man for himself", and that's o.k.

If it were education, it would be like Canadians believe that everyone should have access to education, through public schools, rich, poor or in between, and the U. S. would believe that you either could afford to pay for school or fall by the wayside. Actually, even worse, that if you had any kind of "pre-existing" condition, you couldn't go to school, even if you had the tuition.

Why do we have such different ideas in this country regards access to education and access to health care, which admittedly, all need?

If you get info from those statistics that you think is relevant, please share it. Because, honestly, it is a mystery (and an embarassment to me that our wealthy country is so willing to allow so many to go without needed medical care, and that when nonprofit organizations stage "health fairs" in some of our cities, people come out of the woodwork with untreated diabetes, blood pressure problems, neglected teeth and other conditions that basic access to health care would have prevented or treated long before).

I don't even see significant differences between taxes as a reason. Canada collects about 6% more in taxes as a percentage of GNP, but personal disposable income is not that awfully different, especially given that the Canadian has full health care and need not worry about medical bills.

We spend 3.7 times more on our military as expressed as a percentage of GNP, and the fact that we spend more on our military than all the other countries in the world put together, may speak to our priorities as a country, or our level of fear, so perhaps that spending is soaking up a lot of money that would otherwise be available for more useful things. If that is it, the U.S. citizens are being sadly shortchanged IMHO.

Why are all these countries able to provide access to care to all their citizens, and we are not? How has Canada been able to do these things and we have not? That is my basic question, and no one has ever given me an answer with any degree of believable explanation.

Wildflower
1-25-11, 4:30am
I so agree with what you've said here, LC. And it just drives me crazy that we can't do something comparable to Canada and other countries.... What's it gonna take, how many people are going to go broke or bankrupt due to their healthcare costs! GRRR - it makes me very angry, especially when I think of the hell WJSimon has been through....

flowerseverywhere
1-25-11, 4:59pm
Bae, I have been thinking about what you have posted and I have been trying to think of an answer.
We do spend more on defense but I think the difference is insurance overhead, advertising, attorneys and lobbying.
Insurance companies have big shiny buildings, paid staff, and the bonus structure for the CEO types could cover lots of people. Part of the new healthcare bill includes making companies pay x% towards actual medical care.
When you watch TV (which I don't think you do) you see lots of ads for the latest greatest magic pill. I am amazed at what is advertised during daytime and early evening. Do you really want preschoolers to hear about erectile dysfunction? High blood pressure and cholesterol meds are touted instead of diet and exercise. It is no secret as a society we are not the most healthy.
Attorneys advertise all the time, have you been hurt by x pill or have this diagnosis. They get a percentage of the winnings, they could care less about you. I have no idea if this goes on in other countries. When a physician or drug company are sued they aren't going to absorb the cost.
And lobbying. If you look at campaign donations it is not unusual to have health or insurance companies donating to candidates. Often, lobbying to include things like chiropractic care or autism care are done. In my state autistic kids are identified early and sent to school from about age 2, and some have in home speech or language therapy provided by the school district. Health insurance has to include chiro care. Well, someone has to pay for all this.
The companies that advertise on TV for new diabetic testers or scooters etc. have form letters they get MD's to sign and then go to the insurance companies to get things covered. It is not right because the MD is not making the decision, the people making and profiting from the equipment are.

what do you think Bae?

heydude
1-28-11, 4:37pm
If it really is Obamacare than where the hex do I sign up! It certainly is not a new health insurance that is going to cover me. They make it sound like it is a new health insurance run by the government that everyone is going to have to have. Well, I would love to have the Obamacare. SIGN ME UP!

But of course, that isn't what it is.

bae
1-31-11, 6:15pm
Another fresh ruling about the Constitutional issues with the health care bill:

http://documents.nytimes.com/judge-vinsons-ruling?ref=us



The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by
everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements
that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way
that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how
laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act,
Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again,
this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the
Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded
the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is
not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth
of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.30
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void.

freein05
1-31-11, 6:53pm
How do you get health care for all? Many who can afford it do not buy it so the rest of us pick up the cost. Another question are we really the United States of America. The Tea Party, courts and states rights group seem to want to Balkanize the US. Are we becoming a Europe with a common currency and that is about it.

Alan
1-31-11, 9:15pm
The Tea Party, courts and states rights group seem to want to Balkanize the US. Are we becoming a Europe with a common currency and that is about it.

No, we are a Republic consisting of individual states. And it would seem that the Federal Government oversteps its bounds by requiring that we buy a service.

freein05
1-31-11, 10:28pm
How far do you take the individual states thing? Why does New York have to recognize a Texas drivers license or auto insurance. Does each state have it's own army. In the 2nd amendment guns are needed to defend a free state. Should that be taken to actually mean state and not country. If so the defense department must be unconstitutional.

Zigzagman
1-31-11, 10:36pm
Medicare for all makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything proposed yet. It is just matter of time before everyone realizes that politics will not change the situation that we face in America. American businesses cannot compete with the rest of the world and continue to provide healthcare for their employees and taxpayers cannot support those that choose not to buy insurance. (Although I read today that less than 50% of Americans even pay any income tax)

Welcome to Globalization!! :devil:

Peace

bae
1-31-11, 11:14pm
How far do you take the individual states thing? Why does New York have to recognize a Texas drivers license or auto insurance. Does each state have it's own army. In the 2nd amendment guns are needed to defend a free state. Should that be taken to actually mean state and not country. If so the defense department must be unconstitutional.

You could try reading the Constitution. Old dead white guys talked a lot of this stuff over when they wrote it.

gimmethesimplelife
2-1-11, 1:44am
My two cents worth on one of my fav topics - health care. To those who worry about being forced by the goverment to buy insurance ( and in a way, though I don't agree with the arguement, I can see that this is a point here) - I think it is absolutely insane that a few years back when I needed dental work done my only real option was to flee across the border to Mexico, and I use the word flee as a verb without drama as that is exactly what I did. (Just minus a war in the background or some kind of strife.) I also think it is insane that my mother is seriously debating fleeing (once again, verb without drama) to the Phillipines as she does not trust Medicare and life in general including health care costs much less there. On the one hand, I think this may be a little premature on her part, on the other hand, what would the soldiers who came back from WW11 make of it? A citizen so afraid about access to a basic human service that leaving the US seems like a sane and viable option?

My take on it is that my mother and her generation are probably going to be OK with medicare. It is MY generation (I'm 44) that may need to be worrying if Obamacare is repealed. I have stated this before, and I truly believe it - sometime down the road we are going to see an exodus of Americans leaving the country -
( but probably retaining the citizenship) and moving to places like Argentina, Uruguay, the Phillpines, to name a few - places that allow one to assume permanent residency quite easily and have decent health care quite cheap - to get out of working and to not have that constant nagging worry about health care and the what ifs in the back of their minds. There are Americans on Mexican health insurance right now remaining in the country - even with the escalating violence - due to concerns about the job market and lack of access to health care (they tend to be in their fifties before Medicare kicks in). To me,that says a lot about American health care right there. And I hope I have not offended anyone here, just my two cents or I guess three as I got a bit long winded. Rob

Crystal
2-1-11, 11:55am
I'm not sure how this thread got locked -- there is no discussion in the Moderator Hangout. Pending someone providing an explanation, I'm going to re-open it for now. (Thanks for the 'heads up', Alan) *tiptoeing away and hoping I'm not stepping on any toes here* :confused::|(:doh:

Zigzagman
2-1-11, 1:21pm
I think this post from one of my favorites - Juanita Jean's Beauty Shop (http://www.juanitajean.com/) - pretty much says it all :~)

America was handed a hitch in our getalong yesterday by some damn fool judge in Florida,” Juanita says. “How come Republicans just all the sudden love activist judges?”

“That damn fool judge just about openly admitted that health care is too complicated for him to understand. So, instead lf trying to figure it out, he just hollered NO to the whole thing.”

“There are simply too many moving parts … for me to try and dissect out … the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand alone,” he wrote.
“I can understand that. Instead of explaining yourself, it’s just easier to say NO, NO, NO,” Juanita says.


“So because his figure-outter is broken, he pees on the campfire and calls it a night,” Juanita explains. “You know, that’s what made America great: people who ain’t real bright messing up what the real bright people do,” she says with sarcasm dripping all over the floor.


“Thankfully, one judge in Florida can’t throw out the nation’s health care. So, the Republican can quit with hallelujahing because the fat lady hasn’t even put on her hat yet.”
“Damn fool judge,” she mumbles.


Peace

bae
2-1-11, 1:31pm
Might be worth reading the actual decision, instead of lobbing accusations of being "a damn fool judge" or an "activist judge" or "peeing on the campfire".

I believe I provided a link to it above. Perhaps Juanita should have a look.

freein05
2-1-11, 1:57pm
You could try reading the Constitution. Old dead white guys talked a lot of this stuff over when they wrote it.

The 2nd amendment statement came from the Constitution. " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say nation or country it says free state.

bae
2-1-11, 2:02pm
I'm aware of that, Free. You might want to read the discussions of the time, or any of the recent Supreme Court decisions that go over the matter, if you have an honest interest in the subject. It's not rocket science.

Zigzagman
2-1-11, 4:24pm
Might be worth reading the actual decision, instead of lobbing accusations of being "a damn fool judge" or an "activist judge" or "peeing on the campfire".

I believe I provided a link to it above. Perhaps Juanita should have a look.

Thanks for the link, Bae but I'll simply take Juanita Jean's word for it since she also professes to be a arm-chair constitutional lawyer. BTW, she is married to a lawyer like yourself (if memory serves me). :laff:

In Texas we consider statements like "peeing on the fire" and "damn fool judge" just Texas humor, Molly Ivans style (credited with applying the nickname "Shrub" to George W. Bush), because sometimes you gotta laugh instead of crying. >8)

I guess we'll have to wait on the Supremes to give us their decision. I can't wait to read Clarence Thomas' decision! :|(

Peace

freein05
2-1-11, 7:55pm
If I am not mistaken Clarence Thomas has only written on decision and that was probably written by Scalia. Even though in most cases I don't agree with the conservative members of the court I do respect their intellect. Thomas is another case he has no intellect.

Alan
2-1-11, 9:41pm
If I am not mistaken Clarence Thomas has only written on decision and that was probably written by Scalia. Even though in most cases I don't agree with the conservative members of the court I do respect their intellect. Thomas is another case he has no intellect.

You are mistaken: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Thomas

As for his intellect, Thomas in a strict constitutionalist and libertarian. Many liberals have such high opinions of their own beliefs that it seems only natural to assume people with conflicting opinions simply aren't smart enough to agree with them. Of course, that's complete BS, but whatcha gonna do?

jp1
2-1-11, 10:24pm
I am a strong believer in states rights. I'm also a strong believer in the free market. It's not an either/or position.
I think we all benefit when you allow competition in commerce. Competition always brings down costs and lack of competition always raises them.

I see no reason to believe that states should not compete among themselves, whether it be for providing a climate condusive to business or to increase its attractiveness to potential residents.

But on top of that, I'm most interested in individual choice. Government, in it's desire to take care of us, should not limit our choices and we should resist it whether it's a state government or a federal government.

In this case though, it really is an either/or proposition. Expanding on what freein05 mentioned earlier, if I, a resident of CA, buy a policy from a Louisiana insurer, and later figure out it's a ripoff that doesn't cover anything, is the Louisiana insurance commissioner really going to help me out? After all, I didn't vote for him and can't vote for his competitor in the next election. And that insurer will have undoubtedly given him a nice campaign contribution and probably paid some premium taxes to the state based on these out of state insureds.

That's why we can't buy insurance across state lines. The only real solution to allowing that would be to take away state's rights to regulate insurance by creating a federal insurance commissioner to make sure that no policies were ripoffs.

loosechickens
2-2-11, 3:30am
"As for his intellect, Thomas in a strict constitutionalist and libertarian. Many liberals have such high opinions of their own beliefs that it seems only natural to assume people with conflicting opinions simply aren't smart enough to agree with them. Of course, that's complete BS, but whatcha gonna do?" (Alan)
------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist as well, and I don't believe anyone impugns his intellect. Justice Thomas has been a disappointment on the court, as he asks almost no questions, follows Justice Scalia like a lapdog, and has done very little on his own since he was appointed. He's been virtually a nonentity. My disdain for the quality of his work has little to do with his conservatism. I have no such disdain for either Justice Scalia or Justice Roberts, both of whom are quite conservative, but well respected as men of intellect. No such thing can be said for Justice Thomas, IMHO. I can't speak for anyone else.

I also find myself disquieted by the activism and associations of his wife, which seem somehow problematic for the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice who may well sit in judgment on questions that concern organizations and positions on which she has worked. Perhaps legal, but iffy, to me, in an ethical sense. Again, JMHO

Alan
2-2-11, 8:43am
Justice Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist as well, and I don't believe anyone impugns his intellect. Justice Thomas has been a disappointment on the court, as he asks almost no questions, follows Justice Scalia like a lapdog, and has done very little on his own since he was appointed. He's been virtually a nonentity. My disdain for the quality of his work has little to do with his conservatism. I have no such disdain for either Justice Scalia or Justice Roberts, both of whom are quite conservative, but well respected as men of intellect. No such thing can be said for Justice Thomas, IMHO. I can't speak for anyone else.


Perhaps a cursory reading of the 300+ opinions he's written (link provided above) would change your mind. Or perhaps not.

Gregg
2-2-11, 11:01am
In this case though, it really is an either/or proposition. Expanding on what freein05 mentioned earlier, if I, a resident of CA, buy a policy from a Louisiana insurer, and later figure out it's a ripoff that doesn't cover anything, is the Louisiana insurance commissioner really going to help me out?

IMO there are two levels of responsibility here that aren't really being considered. First, the Federal government actually could be very useful in the establishment of minimum legal standards. Across the board levels of coverage that would mandate the absolute minimum levels of coverage a policy could provide.

Second is individual responsibility. As en vogue as it has become to play the consumer as a victim, individuals DO have responsibilities. That's not a very popular position in the age where so many want the government to simply take care of them, but it could help solve a lot of problems if we got back to that. An insurance policy comes with paperwork explaining how it works and what it covers. That's already a law so no need to add more legislation. If a consumer in CA or AK or anywhere else buys a policy from LA or some other "low standard" state without reading it and asking questions, especially for something they depend on as heavily as health insurance, then I would argue that they deserve their fate. Yes, regulation should be in place to curb predatory practices. There are probably things we could learn from the sub-prime mortgage industry. Setting guidelines to help protect individuals should not remove the mantle of responsibility from the individual.

Alan
2-2-11, 12:13pm
In this case though, it really is an either/or proposition. Expanding on what freein05 mentioned earlier, if I, a resident of CA, buy a policy from a Louisiana insurer, and later figure out it's a ripoff that doesn't cover anything, is the Louisiana insurance commissioner really going to help me out? After all, I didn't vote for him and can't vote for his competitor in the next election. And that insurer will have undoubtedly given him a nice campaign contribution and probably paid some premium taxes to the state based on these out of state insureds.

That's why we can't buy insurance across state lines. The only real solution to allowing that would be to take away state's rights to regulate insurance by creating a federal insurance commissioner to make sure that no policies were ripoffs.

I'm not sure why it would require a federal insurance commissioner to regulate the individual states when state insurance commissioners are already tasked with the responsibility of regulating those insurance products sold within their states.

If any given state is not doing an adequate job of regulating the quality of products sold it seems to me that the caveat emptor doctrine would apply and, theoretically, prevent widescale abuse.

As long as the Supreme Court upholds the current federal court ruling that the government cannot force an individual to purchase a product, it stands to reason that it also cannot force an individual to purchase a product from an unscrupulous company in a state with lax regulation.

The free market is a wonderful thing. It would be a shame to legislate away it's existence.

iris lily
2-2-11, 12:15pm
I remember when someone here from Mass., the state that requires insurance with mandated minimum coverage, complaining that the policy he/she had was declared
inadequate by her state. That's a whole 'nother level of problems that I had not thought about and that has to be considered in this environment of forced insurance buying.

I am interested in the Mass. experiment and am happy to sit back and watch what is going on in that state as a mini-prelude for any nationally mandated coverage.

freein05
2-2-11, 1:16pm
I remember when someone here from Mass., the state that requires insurance with mandated minimum coverage, complaining that the policy he/she had was declared
inadequate by her state. That's a whole 'nother level of problems that I had not thought about and that has to be considered in this environment of forced insurance buying.

I am interested in the Mass. experiment and am happy to sit back and watch what is going on in that state as a mini-prelude for any nationally mandated coverage.

Good point. I too would like to see an unbiased study of Mass. health care law. But with the way politics are the study would be torn apart by both sides.

gimmethesimplelife
2-2-11, 5:30pm
Good point. I too would like to see an unbiased study of Mass. health care law. But with the way politics are the study would be torn apart by both sides.I very much respect Massachusetts for going through with this and being the guinea pig if you will - but I'm afraid I agree that the study would be torn apart by both sides.....A very sad shame for both parties as this is supposed to be about getting the uncovered covered and broadening the insurance pool so the expenses for the unhealthy are made up for by the healthy. Not about nasty politics.....Rob

Never Again
2-2-11, 8:46pm
I remember when someone here from Mass., the state that requires insurance with mandated minimum coverage, complaining that the policy he/she had was declared
inadequate by her state. That's a whole 'nother level of problems that I had not thought about and that has to be considered in this environment of forced insurance buying.

I am interested in the Mass. experiment and am happy to sit back and watch what is going on in that state as a mini-prelude for any nationally mandated coverage.

I am from Mass and self employed so I pay my own health insurance 100%...all that I can tell you is that my premiums have skyrocketed after RomneyCare was introduced...up almost 40% last year alone.

Gregg
2-3-11, 7:55am
Never Again: sorry to hear about your rise in premiums. We were all hoping for a brighter report. Was there any change to your coverage along with the higher costs under "RomneyCare"? It's starting to look like there is no magic bullet (although everyone probably knew that already).

Never Again
2-3-11, 11:31am
Never Again: sorry to hear about your rise in premiums. We were all hoping for a brighter report. Was there any change to your coverage along with the higher costs under "RomneyCare"? It's starting to look like there is no magic bullet (although everyone probably knew that already).

No changes in coverage, I did turn 50 which added a little bit but nowhere near 40%. And this was on top of 20% to 25% increases in each of the previous years. Everyone that I know, employers and self employed, got hit with big increases for 2010.

jp1
2-3-11, 9:27pm
I'm not sure why it would require a federal insurance commissioner to regulate the individual states when state insurance commissioners are already tasked with the responsibility of regulating those insurance products sold within their states.

If any given state is not doing an adequate job of regulating the quality of products sold it seems to me that the caveat emptor doctrine would apply and, theoretically, prevent widescale abuse.


The problem though is that in this case (someone out of state buying an insurance product sold in that state) the product is NOT being sold in that state. Someone outside that state doesn't have much pull when it comes time to complain about the bogus product.

And the ramifications of letting insurance companies sell product in a state they are not domiciled in would extend far beyond health insurance. Two main examples would be workers comp insurance and personal auto insurance. If it were decided, either by federal law or federal court decisions, that states can't enforce coverage requirements for health insurance policies it would quickly lead to eliminating their abililty to enforce coverage requirements for these and other coverages as well. Soon everyone would be able to buy their auto insurance, and businesses their workers comp insurance, from a carrier in the state with the lowest coverage requirements. Soon every worker in NY, a state with relatively robust workers comp laws, would likely be only protected by a plan that pays a very low weekly lost wage benefit because their employer wanted to save money by buying their workers' comp policy from a company in a state like Texas whose law provides its workers with very little protection in the event of an on the job accident.

bae
2-3-11, 9:36pm
The problem though is that in this case (someone out of state buying an insurance product sold in that state) the product is NOT being sold in that state. Someone outside that state doesn't have much pull when it comes time to complain about the bogus product.

And the ramifications of letting insurance companies sell product in a state they are not domiciled in would extend far beyond health insurance.

Odd though. I can successfully order books, food, clothing, automobiles, building materials, musical instruments, chemicals, appliances, and hundreds of other goods from vendors in other states, and somehow it works out. I can enter into contracts with residents of other states, and buy shares of stock in companies in other states, and work for companies that are in other states, and engage in, well, almost unlimited commerce with other states.

But somehow insurance won't work?

jp1
2-4-11, 12:49am
Odd though. I can successfully order books, food, clothing, automobiles, building materials, musical instruments, chemicals, appliances, and hundreds of other goods from vendors in other states, and somehow it works out. I can enter into contracts with residents of other states, and buy shares of stock in companies in other states, and work for companies that are in other states, and engage in, well, almost unlimited commerce with other states.

But somehow insurance won't work?

Most of the items you list are physical goods. Insurance is a promise to pay in the event of certain circumstances, which is a MUCH more complicated product to purchase. Yes, a sophisticated consumer can and will take the time to compare different products. However, insurance companies don't make it easy. This is one of the reason that the medicare buy-up policies are all required to be one of an identical set of choices. The chaos and deceiving by the insurance companies would make it impossible for consumers to figure out which one was truly right for them because they wouldn't be able to tell what was truly covered versus what was covered in theory but which would likely be denied by an obscure exclusion somewhere else in the policy.

And getting back to one of my original concerns. Individuals don't buy their own workers comp policy. They depend on their employer to buy it. Currently their employer has to buy a policy that meets their state's requirements in terms of what's covered, how much is paid, etc. If employers were no longer required to meet their state's worker's comp laws, which would be an inevitable consequence of allowing individuals to buy health insurance across state lines, employers would all buy the cheapest policy they could find, and employees would have no choice but to live with whatever that policy paid if they got injured on the job. Puerto Rico workers comp law only requires coverage for lost wages up to $133/week. I'd hate to be out of work due to a workplace injury and have to manage my bills on that. For a person who lives in/around NYC it'd be tough enough to manage with the $460/week that NY law requires, but at $133 many people would be homeless in no time.

creaker
2-4-11, 7:49am
No changes in coverage, I did turn 50 which added a little bit but nowhere near 40%. And this was on top of 20% to 25% increases in each of the previous years. Everyone that I know, employers and self employed, got hit with big increases for 2010.

One of the reasons for increases was the job market - a lot of healthy people dropped out of insurance pools due to the recession.

peggy
2-4-11, 8:34am
One of the reasons for increases was the job market - a lot of healthy people dropped out of insurance pools due to the recession.

Plus everyone's insurance has gone through the roof. Everyone's! Not just Mass.

Crystal
2-4-11, 8:47am
Plus everyone's insurance has gone through the roof. Everyone's! Not just Mass.

And it went through the roof years ago. Eight years ago the company I worked for had a PPO through UHC. Family coverage cost the employees over $900+/mo. That was on top of what the company paid. And did not include deductibles and co-pays. Only the managers could really afford family coverage.

HappyHiker
2-10-11, 6:00pm
From my point of view our problem is that we don't have HEALTHCARE here in the U.S., we have HEALTH INSURANCE.

Once our health care system started being controlled by the insurance industry, the quality went down and the costs went up. Insurance companies often won't cover pre-existing conditions or even refuse to cover procedures that are in their stated coverage--until sued. It's all about profits, not about health or care. The insurance industry, like our other industries, is all about making money and little about people.

Other countries manage to provide their citizens fair, affordable and equitable health care--but then, they're not under the control of the health care insurance industry. I've little hope things will change here under our present situation.

Zigzagman
2-10-11, 7:44pm
I've little hope things will change here under our present situation.

Same here. As long as corporate America controls Congress there will little if anything that any citizen can do about it. Throw in the mindset of "austerity" and you've lowered the odds even further. At some point before I pass away, I hope that we will change our priorities so that the citizens of this nation are our first priority.

Peace

Eggs and Shrubs
2-11-11, 2:01am
Funny thing freedom. The papers in the UK are filled with the story of a young woman who died in the US after receiving a buttock injection. The procedure is illegal in the UK and any doctor performing this procedure would be jailed and struck off the NHS list of practising doctors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12401032

Dharma Bum
8-12-11, 2:22pm
“Thankfully, one judge in Florida can’t throw out the nation’s health care.


Now a split in the Circuits: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

freein05
8-12-11, 4:04pm
The Supreme Court will make the final decision. It does not look good for the health care law with the current conservative Supreme Court. No one I say again no one is coming out with a better idea to make health care affordable. I am not a big fan of the health care law. We need a single payer plan. The profit and overhead of the care industry does nothing to provide health care.

Dharma Bum
8-12-11, 4:08pm
The profit and overhead of the care industry does nothing to provide health care.

So would nationalizing all goods and services mean that we get all the same stuff but cheaper since we cut out that unwanted profit and overhead?

freein05
8-12-11, 4:25pm
I did not say that. Everyone at some point in time needs health care. Hospitals and doctors would still be making good money but maybe not as much as they are now. Insurance companies would be out of the picture and their billions of dollars in profit and overhead could be used for health care. Look at the recent break through in leukemia treatment it was basically financed by an individual. Big pharama would not finance it because they did not see a big profit in it.

There are far too many profit points in the way our current health care system is structured. Health care will drive the country into bankruptcy.

Alan
8-12-11, 4:34pm
There are far too many profit points in the way our current health care system is structured. Health care will drive the country into bankruptcy.

So what makes health care different from food or energy production, or for that matter, housing? They're all necessary components of our lives.

Are you in favor of nationalizing all industries that people depend upon, in order to take the profit out of it?

Zigzagman
8-12-11, 4:47pm
I did not say that. Everyone at some point in time needs health care. Hospitals and doctors would still be making good money but maybe not as much as they are now. Insurance companies would be out of the picture and their billions of dollars in profit and overhead could be used for health care. Look at the recent break through in leukemia treatment it was basically financed by an individual. Big pharama would not finance it because they did not see a big profit in it.

There are far too many profit points in the way our current health care system is structured. Health care will drive the country into bankruptcy.

Totally agree, Free. Instead of embracing the fact that our present healthcare system cannot be sustained and using the experience of the rest of the world in terms of services/cost ratio we seem to think that healthcare is simply another avenue to get profit and revenue. In fact one of the last left in the nation of greed. At some point it will happen because at this rate more and more people will simply drop out of our profit based system and use government services anyway.

Not only does it put our employers at a disadvantage with the rest of the world but we are simply pricing healthcare out of the grasp of working people. I really do believe that most people are "fed up" with the greedy capitalists in the US.

Peace

Dharma Bum
8-12-11, 5:23pm
Instead of embracing the fact that our present healthcare system cannot be sustained and using the experience of the rest of the world in terms of services/cost ratio we seem to think that healthcare is simply another avenue to get profit and revenue.

Funny, I don't know anyone who thinks that. In fact I hear the opposite- that because it is so important we don't want to turn it over to the govt. Most of the apartment complexes I would live in are nicer than government housing, notwithstanding the evil profit motives of those nasty REITs. Now it is possible to get people a decent place to stay on public money though section 8 allowances, but those allowances rely on a private marketplace to actually provide the housing.

Dharma Bum
8-12-11, 5:28pm
Just to show I'm a fair guy, I think the counterpoint to my housing analogy is education. Public education has its problems, but I think most people are generally OK with the system. Yes, it can and should be improved, but overall I don't think too many people want to go to a totally private or even voucher driven system.

peggy
8-12-11, 5:34pm
So what makes health care different from food or energy production, or for that matter, housing? They're all necessary components of our lives.

Are you in favor of nationalizing all industries that people depend upon, in order to take the profit out of it?

Why don't we privatize police? How about fire protection? Are you for privatizing those? If you don't buy your 'fire protection insurance', well, good luck with the garden hose.
Lets make all roads private, so you can pay a toll on each and every road you drive on. Let's privatize air traffic control. I'm sure we could learn which airports kinda sorta hold the same standards and regulations we want. Let's privatize food inspection. In fact, lets do away with food inspection all together. We don't need no stinking regulations. Meat packers will look out for our best interest, right? Like China? Right?

peggy
8-12-11, 5:42pm
Funny, I don't know anyone who thinks that. In fact I hear the opposite- that because it is so important we don't want to turn it over to the govt. Most of the apartment complexes I would live in are nicer than government housing, notwithstanding the evil profit motives of those nasty REITs. Now it is possible to get people a decent place to stay on public money though section 8 allowances, but those allowances rely on a private marketplace to actually provide the housing.

Really? Really? I guess you're not familiar with the whole INSURANCE business. Or any health care business, really. Or your favorite republican politician, who of course is making a killing in the health care business (where do you think their funding comes from, especially to kill any health care bill)
If no one was trying to use the pain and suffering of others to stuff their pockets, then an aspirin wouldn't cost $10 on your hospital bill, would it.

Zigzagman
8-12-11, 5:51pm
Funny, I don't know anyone who thinks that. In fact I hear the opposite- that because it is so important we don't want to turn it over to the govt. Most of the apartment complexes I would live in are nicer than government housing, notwithstanding the evil profit motives of those nasty REITs. Now it is possible to get people a decent place to stay on public money though section 8 allowances, but those allowances rely on a private marketplace to actually provide the housing.

Agreed education is a major problem when it comes to our healthcare system. The issue becomes what is a better value for the cost. People are OK with the "system"? What frigging choice do they have?

Our system is not only more costly than any other in the Industrialized world but less effective. The government simply take the place of the insurance companies and makes the rules, like the insurance companies. I'll ask you - who would you want to determine your eligibility for care the government or an insurance company?, which would have the greater buying power?, who is already the provider of last resort even today? Given the choice which would an employer choose? If you want to see a real government healthcare system (one whose doctors, services, and all facilities are employed by the government) - check out the VA.

Peace

Dharma Bum
8-12-11, 6:09pm
Why don't we privatize police?

I think we are justifiably concerned about abuse of police powers. We do privatize prisons since there seems to be less discretion there.



How about fire protection? Are you for privatizing those? If you don't buy your 'fire protection insurance', well, good luck with the garden hose.

Like this? http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

That's actually OK with me, I don't see anything special about protecting from property damage. We need to have some life protection in public spaces since there would be no way to sort out who paid for what in an emergency, but honestly that probably could be outsourced. I don't see it as a sacrosanct public function.


Lets make all roads private, so you can pay a toll on each and every road you drive on.

I'm in favor of usage fees for driving if there is a way to make it efficient. Likely not possible to make it efficient though.


Let's privatize air traffic control.

Why would that be so bad? http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/7101.html (BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- The United States lags behind other developed countries in the structure and financing of its air traffic control system..... "Part of the problem is, we're the last major country that runs air traffic control with a government agency," Oster said.)



Let's privatize food inspection. In fact, lets do away with food inspection all together.

This is a non-sequitor. Privatizing doesn't mean eliminating.

Dharma Bum
8-12-11, 6:21pm
If no one was trying to use the pain and suffering of others to stuff their pockets, then an aspirin wouldn't cost $10 on your hospital bill, would it.

I know it's fun to throw mud but ranting doesn't really advance your cause. Anyone who has looked at healthcare costs knows it's complicated. Just as likely to be caring for those poor that is driving that cost.

See http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/11/18_dollar_asprin.html

poetry_writer
8-12-11, 10:43pm
I dont know the answer. I know a friend whos husband has an illness that will probably keep him from ever being able to return to the workforce. She is literally fighting with the hospital to keep him there, since he is uninsured they have tried to dump him out several times. I understand hospitals cant absorb all the costs. His meds alone are in the thousands of dollars per month.....If I get sick I have the ER. Period. Well meaning but ill informed friends with insurance say "oh go to the free clinic, ask them to let you pay it out (right), tell them you are unemployed (haha)"...and other stupid things. The free clinic here only covers bare bones basic care and is virtually useless if you are sick. I tried to apply for assistance from the hospital after an ER visit , there is a cute note at the bottom threatening me with legal action if I happen to have a dime to my name and dont tell them about it. In fact it says, I may go to prison. They want my bank acct numbers, everything about me. They are not getting it . I dont expect anything to change until our entire system crashes. Some folks have gotten very rich with our current system and are reluctant to have it pried from their greedy hands. But isnt that is what is wrong with the entire country.......

creaker
8-13-11, 1:18am
After sitting in MA for several years of Romneycare, I really don't understand why Obamacare is so rallied against.

peggy
8-13-11, 5:25pm
After sitting in MA for several years of Romneycare, I really don't understand why Obamacare is so rallied against.

Exactly! Did you see Romney at the debate the other night? One of the moderators asked him about this and he said that in MA they found there were people who could afford health care insurance but elected to not pay and instead used the emergency room as their only source. IN MA this worked but it wouldn't work for the rest of the country. WTF! Dude, the rest of the country IS like MA. We don't have 3 eyes and 5 arms out here. MA is like Florida is like California is like Missouri. And of course, being a Fox moderated debate, no one called him on it. They just went on to the next question. Unbelievable! How does ANYONE actually swallow this crap! "Yea, eating food everyday works for ME but, of course it wouldn't work for anyone else!" And all the other candidates on stage who are supposed to be, you know, thinking people, didn't say anything, cause of course it's hard to criticize this system that has been in place for awhile and WORKS. As much as they wanted to criticize him, they would have to deal with the inconvenient truth that IT WORKS!
Ask business man Romney, who actually didn't create jobs but eliminated them to streamline companies and increase profits. He got the health care in his state BECAUSE, as a business man, he saw the efficiency and cost savings in doing so.

Lainey
8-13-11, 6:12pm
I think it's a very vocal minority who want a "repeal" and even then, if you start asking about specific details of the new health care like the ability to keep your children on your insurance up to age 26, they actually like most parts of it.

So once again the loud minority is drowning out the majority by the amount of attention they receive from the media who love to stir up controversy, even a fake one.