Lovin ‘s what I got…
Lovin ‘s what I got…
Lovin ‘s what I got…
Lovin ‘s what I got…
Catchy tune, huh? We cover it in my band. It came out a bit after my prime rock’n’roll years – but it does appeal to the youngsters in the audience – it gets them up dancing and singing.
All day today I have had a slight variation of this tune going through my head…
Health care… it’s what I got…
Health care… it’s what I got…
Health care… it’s what I got…
Health care… it’s what I got…
OK – catchy it ain’t…
Today is September 23rd, 2010, and it was exactly six months ago that Health Care Reform was signed into law. Today a large part of the legislation actually went into effect. As a result, many many many Americans – including me and my family – are better off today than they were yesterday. Sadly, quite a few Americans don’t seem to realize how much better off they are.
So, lets take a few minutes to review the reform measures that came into effect today (click here for a more detailed summary):
Children may no longer be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions: I am lucky. My children have been generally healthy and don’t have anything that might qualify as a pre-existing condition. I have quite a few friends who have not been so lucky – who have had children with several asthma, or needing liver transplants, or requiring open heart surgery. I suspect everyone reading this post knows at least one family who has faced similar medical problems.
In the past, insurance companies have been able to refuse coverage to such children if the parents, for one reason or another, needed to change their own insurance company. In the past, a parent of a sick child would not dare to change jobs, or move to another state – because their child would not be covered on their new insurance plan. Losing a job could be a death sentence, because a parent would be unable to purchase insurance covering the child. That is a terrible burden to impose on a family already under stress from their child’s illness.
Thanks to our reform legislation, that burden is a thing of the past.
In 2014 insurance companies will be required to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. That day cannot come quickly enough. Like many middle aged folks, I do have a pre-existing condition, and so does my wife. In fact, development of a medical condition is a common occurrence when one ages. I am glad I love my job – because if I did want to make a career change I wouldn’t dare do it until 2014.
Children will be able to remain on their parent’s plan until age 23. This provision also affects me personally. I have a daughter, recently graduated from college. As everyone knows, it is a bad job market – and although she has a job it isn’t the type of job she will want to make a career of. She really can’t afford health insurance – even the plan offered by her employer. I am glad that I will be able to keep her on my plan, because the alternative isn’t pleasant.
There are no longer “lifetime limits” to insurance payments: I am not sure how closely you read the fine print on your health insurance policy. If you do, chances are you will discover that the policy has a “lifetime limit” for coverage. For example, if your lifetime limit is one million dollars, and you develop a condition that will cost two million to treat – well – tough luck. Your insurance will only cover only that first million. A million dollars might seem like a LOT – but costs add up quickly when you have a serious ailment.
Sarah Palin is back in the news today, spreading more vicious lies about “death panels” in the reform legislation. I wonder what Sarah thinks about lifetime limits. Aren’t those a sort of death panel? The insurance company decides your life is only worth so much and if you need more than that – well – they sentence you to death, don’t they?
Insurers will no longer be able to rescind coverage when you get sick, or if you make a mistake in your application: If I pay for insurance month after month after month, I expect it to be there when I get sick and need it. Insurance companies have a bad habit of collecting your money up front and then rescinding your coverage – typically on the basis of some technicality – when you get sick. It really isn’t insurance then, is it? It is nothing short of theft. Thankfully, the thieves have had this little trick taken out of their arsenal.
Preventive care is now free: Lots of people decide not to get immunizations and not to get colonoscopies and not to get mammograms because it is too expensive for them to afford. Nevermore. It is now included for free as a part of new insurance plans.
I could go on…. these are just a few of the changes that went in today. For a more detailed look, check out the link above.
Who in the world would possibly object to these changes in their insurance plans? Seriously, do people somehow love it when their insurance is rescinded? Do they like it when they are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions? Is it fun to tell your kids that they will have to start buying their own insurance, even when they don’t have a job?
Everyone should be happy with these changes, and in fact polls show that most people are happy with these changes. Nevertheless, there are a large number of conservative politicians running on a “repeal Obamacare” platform. These politicians apparently don’t care what they will be taking away from their constituents. They see an opening for a political power play, and they are going to take it.
Oh – I am sure you will cite polls saying that a majority of Americans want reform repealed. I defy you to find a majority of Americans who want the above provisions to be repealed. In fact, polls show that the majority of Americans support the provisions discussed above – they just don’t realize that those provisions are in the legislation.
No, Americans want reform repealed for two reasons. First, they are misinformed – and are fooled when the Sarah Palins of the world make up things like “death panels” just to score political points.
Americans also want reform repealed because of the personal mandate. They don’t want to be told they have to do anything and refuse to support a reform plan that makes them anything – even if it is good for them. Of course, they also don’t understand that the personal mandate is also necessary for some of the more popular measures in the plan to be viable.
You know, repeal isn’t going to happen, either. Running on “repeal” is a political posture designed to gain votes – but it is also a political impossibility. Over the next two years Republicans will not even be able to bring repeal legislation up for a vote because they will not have 60 votes in the Senate – and Obama would veto a repeal attempt anyway. In 2012 Republicans might retake the Presidency – but will they also have 60 votes in the Senate? I don’t think so. Repeal will not be happening anytime soon.
Health Care… it’s what I got… thankfully
Health Care… it’s what you got… so get used to it…
Tags: conservative, democrat, Health Care Reform, insurance, left-wing, liberal, Obama, political, republican, right-wing, Sublime, wordpress-political-blogs
September 24, 2010 at 10:07 am |
Wasn’t ObamaCare supposed to be Popular by Now?
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/23/wasnt-obamacare-supposed-to-be
September 24, 2010 at 10:53 am |
That is just my point Tex. For anybody in their right mind, it should be popular – but the disinformation campaign has been very effective. People don’t know what they got…. Like I said, Palin was out again yesterday telling lies about death panels.
BTW – I would love to hear your reaction to my point regarding lifetime limits – i.e., aren’t those death panels?
September 24, 2010 at 1:01 pm |
Okay, but shouldn’t we talk about how much it costs first, the number of bureaucracies created, the convoluted flow charts, 2,300 pages of legalese, and the like?
Sure, some of the benefits are great. Just like Social Security – if you happen to receive it for nothing. But the folks in the know, and the ones that are paying, say it’s the worst piece of legislation and biggest boondoggle since the Great Society.
And we now know how bad the Great Society was for society.
For this reason alone, it must be repealed. And I predict at some time, the American public will make it clear that it will be repealed, or your man will revert back to Chicago Southside thug and activist.
September 24, 2010 at 11:29 am |
Actually Americans are now able to be little wussy dependents until the age of 26 HP.
I’ve never known an insurance plan that didn’t cover the items listed on the .gov site.I’ll concede there may have been plans but I’ve never seen one.
On pre-existing conditions. You’re correct that the real life application is horrible;however,nothing has really changed here. One can’t be denied but one will still be left to suck up market cost. To the degree any given individual doesn’t face the total secondary to others subsidizing it shouldn’t be a relief to anyone,other than a single payer guy like yourself.
On Sublime…they so suck.
The PPAC is going to get mounted hippie just like everything inside the Beltway. Mounted and rode hard and left looking like something you wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.
September 24, 2010 at 11:52 am |
Alfie said: Actually Americans are now able to be little wussy dependents until the age of 26 HP.
Alfie, you must not have a kid in that age range. It is not a matter of being a wussy dependent – it is a matter of health insurance being really expensive for someone in their early 20s to afford – especially if they do not have an employer-sponsored plan.
You’re correct that the real life application is horrible;however,nothing has really changed here. One can’t be denied but one will still be left to suck up market cost.
And now, since they have to cover it, insurance companies will maybe be forced to find more ethical ways to control costs. I can’t emphasize enough the degree to which pre-existing conditions destroy mobility. We are supposed to be able to freely pursue employment in this country, or to move wherever we like, aren’t we? That is part of what it means to be free, right? The old ways of doing things certainly destroyed that aspect of our freedom for anyone so unlucky as to have a pre-existing condition in the family.
Not sure what you mean by “PPAC” – google tells me it is the Providence Performing Arts Center…
September 24, 2010 at 1:25 pm |
In reverse order:
Patient Protection Affordable Care Act. It’s what HCR was called most of its life.
Funny how you vocally support job migration and health care. Can I count you as a supporter of the same idea regards retirement programs? No insurance companies will not face it nor will they have to since your side is so against market options across state lines.
Sorry Hippie. Allowing people to avoid grown up cares up to the age of 26 is un-American and unethical as well as unwise.
Here kid go to school,even though you most likely shouldn’t be there. Go ahead kid pile on up to 100k in debt. By all means screw your parents co workers by staying on the dole.
You are a single payer guy to the core. You love the things that actually make single payer the only option. You support the things that will attempt to make single payer the “logical” choice.
I hope you see the evil in that,I honestly do. Slippery slope man slipperry.
September 24, 2010 at 1:46 pm |
Funny how you vocally support job migration and health care. Can I count you as a supporter of the same idea regards retirement programs? No insurance companies will not face it nor will they have to since your side is so against market options across state lines.
Huh? The only people I have heard of against insurance marketed across state lines are 1) Insurance companies (who do not want the competition – the oligopoly is working fine for them), 2) Radical states rights advocates.
Sorry Hippie. Allowing people to avoid grown up cares up to the age of 26 is un-American and unethical as well as unwise.
You can make an argument for unwise, Alfie – but where do you get unAmerican and unethical? The fact is, health insurance is too costly for kids just out of college (and just out of highschool if they don’t go to college). Yeah – if we control the costs I might be onboard.
I hope you see the evil in that,I honestly do. Slippery slope man slipperry.
What I see as evil is that our system is ranked #37 in the world (with a lot of those evil single payer places ahead of us). What is even more evil is the way we have allowed the insurance companies to squeeze us for profit. It is blood money, Alfie – and yes – that is EVIL.
Want to see evil? Read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html
September 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm |
Oh – Alfie – I know you like Ric over at Grumpy Lion. Take a look at his take on this. It is worded quite a bit more strongly than mine.
http://grumpylion.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/big-surprise-health-insurance-companies-slime-children
September 24, 2010 at 2:47 pm |
I do,I did,and yes it is. My comment there works here as well. Perhaps that is where you and i could find some common ground. the insurance companies in our investment portfolios may or may not help us in our retirement years. Companies that are stepping up and providing service can be recognized.
September 24, 2010 at 2:35 pm |
The only people I have heard of against insurance marketed across state lines are…
Wow! You just ain’t listening then. As a rule it is your side against the idea and the great irony is they have the balls to cite “states rights” re regulatory powers as the reason.
Cost control? Mmmm I can’t launch down this road at this time. Suffice to say you are a socialist. I leave it to others to decide on lower or upper case “S”. I will say that I don’t mean that as the typical knee jerk insult kind of thing,just it is un capitalistic to utter the words cost control and not be meaning it from a production perspective ergo…socialist.
As for the un-American and unethical stuff. Well here we find ourselves at the abyss between you and I ideologically speaking. I find it to be very much against the tradition of this nation and we as a people to force others to do for us. Its one thing to accept something when offered or to enter into a contract of mutual cooperation but to force your dependency upon others is wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
September 24, 2010 at 3:07 pm |
Hippie…I’ll give you something on “death panels” if you’ll give me something on portable pensions
September 24, 2010 at 3:13 pm |
Alfie – can you provide a bit more info on the “portable pension” thing? It isn’t on my radar screen – so I don’t really know what I would be giving you…
September 24, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
Well I’ll let it go then. I was just wondering if someone who presumably believes in health care portability would support the same with pensions.You see I’m a big liberty kind of guy and big on privatizations.
As for your stuff. I won’t get all linkie but I think one should be vigilant regards the government. The health care law does indeed have a couple of provisions for entities that will be tasked with “cost effectiveness”. In the UK NICE is far from being nice. Please stand with those who do actually need the blue pill and that the red,purple or what have you isn’t quite the same.
September 24, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
My pension stuff is handled by TIAA-CREF, which is close to universal at academic institutions and is fully portable if I changed jobs within academics. I guess I was unaware that some pensions are not portable. That seems silly, and on face value I would certainly support portability of pensions – though I am not aware of the subtleties of that issue and I don’t know completely what I am committing to….
September 24, 2010 at 6:34 pm |
hippieprof,
I believe you are mistaken in everything you say. President Obama snapped his fingers and just created new entitlements out of thin air. Free health care. The rich guy will pay for it. No down side. It’s a sad commentary on the state of America when so many of it’s citizens can be bought off with freebies.
President Obama reminds me of the auction house huxters I saw on the Wildwood NJ. boardwalk when I was a kid in the 60s. They gave away a lot of free stuff too .
Just wait until Obamacare really takes hold. All of the promises ‘will’ be broken. Start making up excuses for the failure. Like you guys are for the Porkulus failure.
September 25, 2010 at 9:50 am |
Alan said: I believe you are mistaken in everything you say.
Mornin’ Alan…
Hmmm…. I am tempted to create a paradox here by saying “I agree.”
You seem to think this is about entitlements. I disagree.
Lets start with rescission – the practice of insurance companies of dropping your coverage after you get sick – often on the basis of some trumped-up technicality. I call that downright evil. I guess I feel I am entitled to having the insurance coverage I paid for when I need it. So – yeah – I guess that is an entitlement. I am entitled not to get ripped off. Perhaps you think insurance companies are entitled to steal from me?
How about “lifetime limits” on coverage – where the insurance company says that my life is worth 1 million and tough luck if I get a disease costing more to treat. I call that a “death panel” because some actuary at the insurance company has put an arbitrary “value” to my life. Unlike the “death panels” Sarah Palin invented, these death panels are real and were a legal part of insurance plans as recently as last Monday. Yeah – I guess I feel I am “entitled” to not having some faceless actuary placing a value on my life.
How about pre-existing conditions? Am I entitled to have those covered? Yes – I think so. As I have argued above, failure to cover pre-existing conditions places great restrictions on my freedom to seek employment and my freedom to live in whatever state I choose. I guess you would imply that freedom to seek employment. and freedom to change your place of residence are things only the healthy are entitled to?
Yeah – I guess you were right – it is all about entitlement after all….
September 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
Well, I’ve just returned from a trip to Rutherford’s blog, which, as I commented, makes me want to take a shower. As I have said to you before, there is such a fundamental difference between right-wing conservatives and reasonable people (that category includes both liberals and conservatives) that we might as well be living on different planets, or at least in different countries. They seem to think there are two kinds of people: hard-working Americans such as themselves, and leeches who want to take everything away from them. I can’t even begin to say all that’s wrong with that depiction. After my shower, I think I’ll do a blog about…flowers, or something.
September 25, 2010 at 1:33 pm |
FN said: As I have said to you before, there is such a fundamental difference between right-wing conservatives and reasonable people (that category includes both liberals and conservatives) that we might as well be living on different planets, or at least in different countries.
Oh – but you are forgetting something important. There ARE no moderate conservatives, remember? All of those people are just RINOs.
September 25, 2010 at 1:43 pm |
Oh, right. What was I thinking?
September 25, 2010 at 1:06 pm |
And yes. Death panels are what we had before now, with lifetime limits. That provision was the scariest to me, even worse than the pre-existing condition one. Normally, in my experience, even pre-existing conditions will be covered by employer-sponsored health care plans after a year. Which is scant comfort if you’re stricken with some catastrophic illness related to that pre-existing condition during that one year. Because not only will the insurance company not pay for treatment during that year, they will never pay for it even when your year is up, because of the timing.
On another note, between my current employer and my last employer, I was unemployed for about 4 months and paying for insurance under Cobra. Since there was never a gap in my health insurance, the new insurance co. could not consider anything “pre-existing”, or at least, that’s how I understood it.
September 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm |
It’s possible that waiving the pre-existing conditions clause was another part of my “negotiations”…I can’t quite remember, it’s been a while
And then, I didn’t even have any pre-existing conditions to speak of. But I’m acutely aware that some insurance co.’s these days make a practice of tying remote illnesses in childhood to current illnesses and calling them “pre-existing”.
September 26, 2010 at 8:51 am |
hippieprof,
There were better ways to reform health care than what your hero did. He destroyed a working system. You may not have liked how it worked but, it worked. And I am really tired of you left wingers demonizing insurance companies as the primary cause of the systems problems. Creating another inefficient, unsustainable system of entitlements ain gonna work.
Insurance companies have to make profits to survive. Putting them out of business IS not the answer. But like everything else about Obama, we will all have to find out the hard way. It’s like your kid who won’t listen until life smacks him in the face with a sledge hammer. At least the voters this November will kicking out the idiots who have ruled Congress for nearly 4 years.
September 26, 2010 at 10:38 am |
Alan, what are those better ways? Obama “destroyed a working system”? You can’t be serious. In fact, one of the criticisms of HCR is that it leaves EXACTLY the same system in place, while giving insurance companies a windfall of hundreds of thousands of new customers. That’s why insurance companies were for it. In return, they had to give up a few sleazy practices. Demonizing insurance companies? Who shall we demonize instead? Doctors? Patients?
There is a school of thought that says health insurance should not be a for-profit enterprise. I happen to agree with that.
As for an earlier comment that we should be asking about the cost first, no we should not. If you see someone drowning, do you first ask yourself whether or not it will be profitable if you save them?
September 26, 2010 at 10:52 am |
Alan, I honestly don’t even know where to begin…. I guess this is as good a place to start as any…
He destroyed a working system. You may not have liked how it worked but, it worked.
Seriously? It worked? I don’t think most right-wingers will even make the claim that it worked. Here we are, the richest nation on earth and we can only manage to be ranked 37th for health care? Behind places like Costa Rica? How does a system work when tens of millions are uninsured, and many of those can’t afford even the most basic health care? How is it that we pay more for health care than anywhere else, yet get less? How is it that the “working system” has annual price increases far outpacing the rate of inflation?
Insurance companies have to make profits to survive. Putting them out of business IS not the answer.
Indeed, for-profit companies need to make profits. However, has it ever dawned on you that perhaps health insurance is one of those industries in which a for-profit system is contrary to providing a quality product? Insurance companies increase their profits by cutting corners on patient benefits – and if you think about it, how else are they supposed to increase profits? As a result PEOPLE DIE because the CEO of the insurance company wants a new mansion…..
As I mentioned above – we are ranked 37th worldwide in health care. No other country relies on private for-profit health insurance the way we do. Think that might be a meaningful correlation?
Of course, one reason insurance companies are able to behave like this is that there is no real competition in the marketplace. Removing cross-state barriers would be one solution – but guess what – insurance companies don’t want that. Likewise, having a public OPTION or a non-profit OPTION would have increased competition. But – again – the insurance companies (and their lap dogs in congress) DON’T WANT COMPETITION. They are pefectly happy with their little oligopoly, thank you.
It’s like your kid who won’t listen until life smacks him in the face with a sledge hammer.
That is what I think of people who are shills for the insurance companies. They think the current system is ever-so-wonderful, until they get sick or a family member gets sick – and suddenly that wonderful insurance company is refusing to pay the bills. Instead of concentrating on getting well, you have to deal with the extra stress of fighting your insurance company. Maybe you are dead before it ever gets resolved. There are many many many such testimonials out on the web. By contrast, you will find very very few “my insurance company treated me well….” testimonials….
September 26, 2010 at 10:54 am |
If you see someone drowning, do you first ask yourself whether or not it will be profitable if you save them?
In all seriousness…yes you do,in a way.
I know you meant well by using the analogy but it isn’t real. As a former rescue/EMS person I can tell you one does indeed go through the sometimes agonizing deductions of the risks/worth of a potential rescue. A rescuer who gets injured,trapped or killed isn’t of any value to anyone.
As for the “working system” thing. I think this is what frosts a lot of people. The TRUTH is that the system did indeed work for the majority.
September 26, 2010 at 11:10 am |
Alfie said: The TRUTH is that the system did indeed work for the majority.
That might be true – though certainly the rising costs were not working for the majority. Likewise, many people don’t realize the unethical things insurance companies do and think the system is working for them – until it is too late.
Still, I think the “working for the majority” comment is interesting. The system very much was NOT working for a substantial subset of the population (i.e., tens of millions of people) The “majority” seem to think that is OK. I think that is a sad commentary on our values. “Hey – sucks to be you but I got mine!”
September 26, 2010 at 11:42 am |
Alfie, my analogy is still valid. What I said was that you don’t make the decision based on whether or not it would be profitable. What you said is that you make a decision based on the risk to the rescuer, and that is a completely different kind of decision.
As long as we’re sharing personal details, my best friend just died in July of metastatic breast cancer. She survived for four years after the diagnosis, went through numerous bouts of chemotherapy and two hip replacements. Maybe over the top, in terms of treatment? Because the reality was, she was going to die anyway. And who decided she could get that? Her insurance company. If she had not had insurance, I believe she would have died in the first year. As much as I loved her, as much as I wished she could have all the treatment she wanted, I would not have wanted that if it was denied to others. Because who am I to make that decision? And who are you to make that decision? And who is an insurance company to make that decision?
That’s why I get crazed about the whole death-panel myth. The bill says that doctors can get paid for having end-of-life discussions with patients. That is already going on all over the place, they just “code” it differently. It was a stupid and unnecessary clause which clouded the issue of HCR politically.
Sorry, I get a little carried away over the subject.
September 26, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
That’s why I get crazed about the whole death-panel myth. The bill says that doctors can get paid for having end-of-life discussions with patients. That is already going on all over the place
I have always been amazed by this. What is in the bill is pretty much about talking about living wills, etc. How that was turned into “death panels” boggles the mind.
A lot of things go on in medicine that the general public is unaware of. Over 20 years ago, my father was essentially euthanized – he was in the final stages of cancer, in a coma, and very clearly going to die. The doctor, without consent, increased his morphine dose to (in his own words) “move things along more quickly.” I am told that this type of thing is quite common – and frankly I think is the right thing to do in such cases. We just shouldn’t fool ourselves – something equivalent to a “death panel” is already very much a part of the practice of medicine.
September 26, 2010 at 11:40 am |
Well Hippie lets use the numbers that were routinely touted.
47 million.
- 12-20 million illegals
-7-15 million who chose not to have coverage,mostly in the self employed and younger age demo.
that’s 12-28 million in a population of over 300 million.
btw our entire political system is based on the majority and I have mine sucks to be you.
September 26, 2010 at 11:54 am |
Um…no, that is not at all what our entire political system is based on. How is it that you can so misunderstand that? Our entire political system is based on guaranteeing the rights of individuals and minorities vs. majority rule. Sometimes that gets uncomfortable, such as when you have Pastor What’s-His-Name threatening to burn Korans on 9/11, but that’s just what it is.
September 26, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
Alfie said: btw our entire political system is based on the majority and I have mine sucks to be you.
Not sure I agree – but even if I concede the point doesn’t it bother you just a little bit? “I got mine and it sucks to be you” is not a philosophy under which social cohesion is likely to develop.
-7-15 million who chose not to have coverage,mostly in the self employed and younger age demo.
A lot of these “choose not to” folks are “want it but can’t afford it” – that is a completely different bird.
Even using your figures, that comes to about 10 percent – which is a substantial proportion.
September 26, 2010 at 1:17 pm |
hippieprof,
” we can only manage to be ranked 37th for health care? ”
What is your criteria for this ranking? 37th in affordability, in delivery, in cost, in quality?
” Seriously? It worked? I don’t think most right-wingers will even make the claim that it worked. ”
Uhhhhh, how do you know what right wingers think? You only know what left wingers tell you what right wingers think. And of course it worked. The vast majority of Americans had quality health care.
” However, has it ever dawned on you that perhaps health insurance is one of those industries in which a for-profit system is contrary to providing a quality product? ”
Has it ever dawned on you that if Congress removed barriers so that Insurance Companies could compete against one another across state lines, that would largely take care of itself. Wait,,,,,it did, it did, it did.
” Removing cross-state barriers would be one solution – but guess what – insurance companies don’t want that. ”
See there in lies the lie you guys tell about us, that we want no government regulation. If your guys, who have been running the known universe for almost 4 years were even capable of resisting lobbyists, the cross state barriers would be gone. Democrats resisting lobbyists, funny joke, right?
” Likewise, having a public OPTION or a non-profit OPTION would have increased competition. ”
Your lack of common knowledge is frightening. Public competition will put even the good efficient companies out of business. See if you can follow me, ok. There is a place for a government role. The government can form a high risk pool of folks who have a history of catastrophic illnesses to get them out of the low risk pool which is what the private insurers should be competing for nationally. That high risk pool could be supported by taxes. It’s called efficiency. See that wasn’t so hard was it?
” As a result PEOPLE DIE because the CEO of the insurance company wants a new mansion…. ”
Wow,,,when you drank the Obama koolaid, you went back for a second glass.
Lastly, the Obama-care mandates. There is a valid comparison to be made with car insurance. Now you being a rich, economically protected College Professor probably are driving a new Cadillac Escalade ( 12 mpg ). Naturally you have full coverage to protect it. Expensive, but you can afford it.
Moi, a poor private sector wage slave who doesn’t know when his next layoff is coming, am driving a 99 Kia Sportage that has been towed so many times, I don’t even have to tell the tow truck driver where to take it anymore. I have only liability coverage. Now imagine Your hero mandating that I pay for the same expensive coverage you have. That is exactly the kind of one size fits all type of ‘Mandates’ Obama the Great has saddled all of us with.
Maybe I don’t need pregnancy coverage, why should I pay for it? Maybe most women don’t need prostate coverage. Maybe I don’t want to pay for message therapy, but would pay more for cancer or heart coverage. I hope you are still with me.
September 26, 2010 at 6:44 pm |
Alan said: What is your criteria for this ranking? 37th in affordability, in delivery, in cost, in quality?
That the WHO ranking, and takes in multiple factors, including those you mention. We do particularly badly because our medical care is more expensive than anywhere else without any evidence of the increased quality that might be expected to go along with higher cost. Our failure to have universal health care means that quality care is unavailable to large sectors of our population compared to other industrialized nations.
Uhhhhh, how do you know what right wingers think? You only know what left wingers tell you what right wingers think.
Ahhh…. because I once was right-of-center in my politics, and because I grew up in a family in which everyone was conservative, and because I have a number of friends who are conservative, with whom I discuss these issues?
See there in lies the lie you guys tell about us, that we want no government regulation. If your guys, who have been running the known universe for almost 4 years were even capable of resisting lobbyists, the cross state barriers would be gone. Democrats resisting lobbyists, funny joke, right?
Nobody does a good job of resisting lobbyists, Alan. I have tremendous anger at the Joe Lieberman’s and Ben Nelson’s who were supposed to be on my side of the issues but allowed their ties to lobbyists wreck what would have been a better HCR bill.
It looks like we agree on something, though – getting rid of cross-state barriers would be a good move. It won’t solve the whole problem – but it will solve some of it. I don’t see too many GOP plans that actually want that to occur, though – because, as I said, insurance companies are just fine with their oligopoly and don’t want more competition.
That high risk pool could be supported by taxes. It’s called efficiency. See that wasn’t so hard was it?
Ahhh…. I believe the bill you hate so much in fact does have high-risk pools.
Wow,,,when you drank the Obama koolaid, you went back for a second glass.
Maybe he drank my Kooaid – because I have been talking about this stuff for long before he appeared on the scene.
Now you being a rich, economically protected College Professor
You have an odd idea about how well college professors are apparently paid…. and most are environmentally conscious – so you will so no Cadillacs in a faculty parking lot – though you do see a lot of Priuses (Priusi?)
Moi, a poor private sector wage slave who doesn’t know when his next layoff is coming, am driving a 99 Kia Sportage that has been towed so many times, I don’t even have to tell the tow truck driver where to take it anymore. I have only liability coverage. Now imagine Your hero mandating that I pay for the same expensive coverage you have. That is exactly the kind of one size fits all type of ‘Mandates’ Obama the Great has saddled all of us with.
Of course, when your car gets wrecked, nobody feels sorry for you because you lack insurance and nobody is going to go out and buy you a new car because you made a bad mistake and didn’t buy insurance. When you are uninsured and have a heart attack, though, you still get treated. I suppose if we actually started letting uninsured people die (and their kids and other dependents too) then people would actually understand this a bit more.
September 26, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
What I said was that you don’t make the decision based on whether or not it would be profitable. What you said is that you make a decision based on the risk to the rescuer, and that is a completely different kind of decision. Reread that a few times and I think you’ll have a different opinion or at least see how others may.
As for the majority…
Who wins an election and how?
Why are so many Progressives mad at Obama? (that one is a tricky,multi-layer one but…)
Populism is a historic reality albeit not a constant in US politics.
As for death panels…I’m not one of those folks. I will say though that I have more concerns over the pending US adoption of entities that resemble the UK’s NICE.
From here and Rutherfords I think you are clearly (not unlike HP to a degree) one of those folks that my real world conversations would be more interesting,dynamic and capable of accomplishing some level of mutual understanding.
Alas we’ll be cursed to the various e forums. Know this,just as I told hipster here,I’ll try harder to keep that in mind whence we meet.
Cheers-Alfie
September 26, 2010 at 6:04 pm |
Alfie said: From here and Rutherfords I think you are clearly (not unlike HP to a degree) one of those folks that my real world conversations would be more interesting,dynamic and capable of accomplishing some level of mutual understanding.
Alfie, I would agree with that. FN – you probably don’t realize it because you haven’t interacted with him as much – but Alfie is commonly a voice of moderation amongst the right-leaning crowd. In fact, I have heard him called out as a “RINO” – even on his own blog. I keep accusing him of being a closet liberal, but he hasn’t gone that far yet….
Why are so many Progressives mad at Obama? (that one is a tricky,multi-layer one but…)
Because we thought he would do a better job of getting the job done – that he would be like an LBJ and see to it that his agenda was enacted. I think he over-estimated his ability to do that – and I guess I over-estimated it too. Of course, I don’t think any of us (him included) expected FOX to develop as such a strong propaganda force – and yes – I know you disagree on that point.
September 26, 2010 at 8:25 pm |
hippieprof,
” Of course, when your car gets wrecked, nobody feels sorry for you because you lack insurance and nobody is going to go out and buy you a new car because you made a bad mistake and didn’t buy insurance. ”
I cannot believe you totally missed my point. You must be more insulated from the real economy than even I imagined. I hate when I have to splain the metaphors. If you have a new expensive car, it makes sense to fully insure it. After a certain age it no longer pays to have comprehensive or collision because the book value of the car is below what it costs to repair or even insure. You only keep liability on the old clunker. If you smash it, you go get another POS.
” When you are uninsured and have a heart attack, though, you still get treated. I suppose if we actually started letting uninsured people die (and their kids and other dependents too) then people would actually understand this a bit more. ”
You cannot mandate the purchase of health insurance, yet you guys did. People will get treated whether or not they have insurance.
Again I come back to mandates. Special interests lobbied ‘your’ guys to get extra coverages mandated into Obama-care. Obama-care was supposed to reduce costs. Maybe I do not need all of the extra coverages your brainless hero mandated I pay for. Maybe I only need bare bones catastrophic coverage.
Mandates, mandates, mandates. Get it. A young person has medical needs and risks different than a senior citizen, yet Obama the not so Bright mandates the same coverage. This is so the young person can subsidize the old person’s costs. It is stupid and unfair.
Cost shifting, cost shifting, cost shifting. Smoke and mirrors is what “Universal Health Care ” is all about,,,period.
September 28, 2010 at 12:46 pm |
Alan said: I cannot believe you totally missed my point.
Sorry – I did indeed miss your metaphor.
You cannot mandate the purchase of health insurance, yet you guys did. People will get treated whether or not they have insurance.
The courts have yet to rule on that. I suspect you will have some victories in lower courts but the Supreme Court will rule that indeed you can mandate purchase of health insurance. We will see. As far as people getting treated no matter what? If you take a kid into the ER with an earache it costs a lot more than if you had your regular pediatrician or GP look at it – and that cost is passed on to the rest of us. It also ties up the ER system from dealing with the stuff they need to be dealing with – real emergencies.
You are also forgetting that preventative care should, in theory, result in fewer emergencies – so we mandate coverage for relatively cheap things like visiting the GP – and hopefully reduce the rate of expensive things that might occur later. Seems lile a smart policy to me.
This is so the young person can subsidize the old person’s costs. It is stupid and unfair.
It is also stupid and unfair that my auto insurance premium is underwriting the asshole who drives drunk – but that is what insurance is about, isn’t it? It is based on shared risk. Some of that risk may not apply to you – but that is how ALL insurance systems work. You don’t need a mammogram, but the women in the plan don’t need their prostate’s checked. When you are older, the younger generation will be subsidizing you. Why is this so different from any other insurance system?
September 29, 2010 at 10:02 pm |
hippieprof,
” When you are older, the younger generation will be subsidizing you. Why is this so different from any other insurance system? ”
One word,,,,, demographics. I am sorry for being extremely sarcastic but years of arguing with liberals who ignore the relevance of certain facts drives me to distraction.
I’ve used this argument when laying out the case that SS and Medicare are doomed. Then a Liberal comes back with, well we just have to do some painless tweak like raising taxes on someone else, not us, and bim, bam ,boom, we have brilliantly fixed it.
Demographics. Compared to da good ole days when women had 5 to 15 kids and Ma and Pa didn’t live past 65, the coming numbers should scare the hell out of sane people. American birth rates are not what they were. The only folks having more than 3 kids are the immigrants. And all of us soon to be geezers will never die. We can be kept alive with feeding tubes and in diapers long enough to bankrupt this country 5 times over.
” You are also forgetting that preventative care should, in theory, result in fewer emergencies – so we mandate coverage for relatively cheap things like visiting the GP – and hopefully reduce the rate of expensive things that might occur later. Seems lile a smart policy to me. ”
I hate to break this to you because it is counter intuitive, but this is false. Preventive care certainly improves health and lengthens life but, in reality it does not decrease costs. The more we use preventative care, the more we increase costs. You can make the argument that it improves quality of life and is worth it on that basis, but the costs do not go down in the real world.
September 30, 2010 at 10:32 am |
Hippie, Alan is right about this below and it is intuitive.
I’m a big proponent of preventative medicine and always have lived by the motto of “body, heal thyself.” But no matter how long we are able to fend of disease and decay, they still will happen and that’s a guarantee – albeit at a later date.
When I discuss preventative medicine, it is always in the context of quality of life issues; never cost.
The fact of the matter is healthcare is so expensive not because we aren’t living longer, but are probably living longer than we were intended. I know, I know. That’s a morbid thought that pains me to write, as I certainly and no proponent of euthanasia either. Tough, tough issue.
September 30, 2010 at 2:16 pm |
Tex said…. Hippie, Alan is right about this below and it is intuitive…. But no matter how long we are able to fend of disease and decay, they still will happen and that’s a guarantee – albeit at a later date.
Tex and Alan…
I understand your logic – that preventative care increases the lifespan and hence the cost of medical services consumed in a lifetime increases.
I am not sure this survives scrutiny, though. Lets say that good preventative care increases the average lifespan by two years. The two years, all else held equal, will be an added expense – though not a huge added expense. But – is all else really held equal? For example, long term high blood pressure will eventually result in kidney failure, requiring expensive dialysis for the last few years of life. Compare this to the individual who has good preventive care, including having high blood pressure treated with medication. This person might live a couple of years longer – and in addition those coulple of years would not include dialysis.
So – are you really sure that living longer will on average cost more?
Tex also said: The fact of the matter is healthcare is so expensive not because we aren’t living longer, but are probably living longer than we were intended. I know, I know. That’s a morbid thought that pains me to write….
Why Tex – that sounds like “death panel” talk to me!!!
Seriously, though – you know as well as I do that these are very sticky issues – yet important issues nevertheless. The “death panel” provisions in the HCR simply allow for talking about such issues. They do not advocate euthanasia. Why is talking about it such a big deal?
September 30, 2010 at 5:25 pm
I’m not getting your logic Hipster.
When the kidneys fail, dialysis will be required whether at 78 or 82. Any days living longer is a medical expense. Now I suppose you could make the argument that someone drops dead of a M.I. before their kidneys give out due to a lifetime of preventive care, but all things being equal, preventive care generally increases costs for the sole reason people live longer.
Most of us, assuming no self-inflicted damage, are pretty much preprogrammed to die of some natural cause: heart attack, organ failure, cancer, sepsis, something. Good care might (and that is debatable in medical circles) push it back a few years.
It’s a well kept secret in the medical community that extending life is what is taxing the system. Nobody wants to talk about it, however. And when it’s your mom or your wife or you kid, economics become complete inelastic and logic is not part of the human equation.
You wanted me to revert to MBA days – so I did.
September 30, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
By the way, I could have said “all of us” are preprogrammed to die of something, and I probably should have, but there are a few instances of death by system wide shutdown where homeostasis simply doesn’t work anymore.
So before you rip me, I actually did mean what I said without being flippant.
September 30, 2010 at 9:09 pm |
hippieprof,
I posted this also on Ms. Holland’s board. What is your opinion on Ronald McDonald threatening to end health care for 30,000 employees because of Obama-Care? McDonalds denied it. This is only the beginning of Obama-care’s destruction. I remember your freaking hero telling us that if we liked our Health plans there would be no changes.
He also said costs would go down. He was ‘wrong’.
September 30, 2010 at 9:53 pm |
McDonalds indeed has denied it – so I don’t see how this is a story until something actually happens. I don’t believe they will dare do there. If indeed corporations and insurance companies start doing this it smells of collusion to me, and I suspect the justice department will come down on it VERY hard. Corporations don’t like the new rules, so they are conspiring to make the new rules look far far worse than they really are – in the hopes of getting people angry and pushing for repeal. Perhaps you think I am paranoid – but don’t fool yourself – this is a monopoly we are fighting and they are going to throw their weight around any way they can.
Of course, this kind of BS is exactly whey we needed a public option to begin with.
October 1, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
hippieprof,
” If indeed corporations and insurance companies start doing this it smells of collusion to me, and I suspect the justice department will come down on it VERY hard. ”
You cannot be serious. Collusion with who? With themselves. You don’t have a clue what’s going on, do you? And I suspect that the Justice Department will make an even bigger fool of itself than Congressman Henry ( Nostril damus ) Waxman made of himself .
Do you remember when the esteemed idiot threatened the Evil executives of Deer & Co, AT&T, Verizon, Honeywell, Boeing, etc. for exposing one of the many lies about Obama-Care?
Obama-Care was supposed to lower costs. Uh, yea,,,,right. The Nostril was upset that these evil Corporations were taking charges against profits because of the law. It was proof that costs would go up, not down.
In fact some companies were losing the subsidy for drug coverage for retirees which makes it harder for that to go on.
Congressman Waxman ssshhh, quietly canceled his inquisition.
My point is, this is only the start of a parade of unintended consequences. You can not do thousands of poorly constructed cost shifts to a complicated system and then believe you won’t do more harm than good.
Actually that is not true. You guys really can believe it.
September 30, 2010 at 9:17 pm |
hippieprof,
Wait until Obamascare really gets going. Everything you guys said would happen won’t. Costs are going up and benefits are going down. All of these idiot college morons who thought they had a free ride on Ma and Pa’s insurance are in for a slap across the face. Ma and Pa ain’t gonna have no insurance.
In spite of what your hero promised, guess what, the free lunch ain’t free. Every generation has to learn the hard way.