Of course, the Teabggers will probably say that moderate isn’t good enough. They always have to find something to complain about. How about a little cheese to go with that whine. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The simplest provisions don’t begin until later this month with all the mess to follow and you believe its working. Its hard to deal with someone with irrational exuberance. What color is the sky in your fictinal world. And, you must have missed the part about the cuts in Medicare. I suppose in dreamland, that cost shifting is only a myth. I will take Teabaggers any day over Windbaggers and headinthesanders.
It’s Rosie… anyone who has ever posted on a health care article has seen her messages.
Her posts are generally broad, subjective, and lack intelligence/contributing information. Just ignore her.
Everything mentioned in this article is an estimate. And as we know, when dealing with spending and the government, those estimates are probably way wrong. I take it with a grain of salt as should you.
This whole issue is the government trying to take more control away from the people. It is an attempt made by an out of touch and power hungry administration.
A republican is going to come in in 2012 and undo as much of this as they can.
Reform is going drive Federal cost by more than 6.3% over next 8 yrs. and COBRA subsides are going to expire for unemployed and those dislocated from group insurance. Obviously health cars spending is growing at about 3xs the national growth. How will we keep up as individuals as incomes do not seem to be keeping pace – if not falling due to the recession? And, what if we see a double dip???
Reality (and I find that moniker ironic), you fail to regard the facts: WHAT freedoms are being taken from you? By what power hungry entity? If you mean the freedom to arbitrarily be cancelled by your health insurer, if you mean the freedom to see health insurance rates in the private market increase by double digits for the past almost a decade, if you mean the ability of private insurers to determine what care your physician will give subject to the whims of an insurance clerk interested in cost cutting, then I say, so be it. Where have you been all this time when our health insurance rates have been increasing well, well over the rate of inflation? Don’t you read the numerous muck raking articles about cancellation of policies once someone becomes sick despite the fact that they have paid premiums for years? Where is your outrage that coverage has been denied for many life saving procedures as “uncovered” by private insurers? How come a death panel by a private insurer is less egeregious than one by perhaps the federal government, as your ilk erroneously impute? Where is your outrage that the very, very wealthy health insurers were being subsidized to the tune of millions if not billions for the Medicare supplements? Where is your outrage that the (GOP) administration capitulated to the large pharmaceutical companies and agreed to not price negotiate costs of pharma that it pays for during the Bush years? Where was your voice then? or can you only rip apart and tear down a start at least to try to insure the uninsured? To try to curb the egeregious overstepping and practices of the private insurers? Where is your outrage over the ‘not for profit” insurance carriers that were going to raise rates 19% when they already had over three times the required and necessary reserves?
You are not a realist; you have swallowed all the propaganda lock stock and barrel. You are not thinking for yourself but mouthing the idiotic pap spewed forth by the party of NO. Why don’t you say something constructive for once and let me know that you are in fact a sentient and thinking human being and a fellow citizen of our country?
This healthcare thing should NOT be a political issue but has been perverted into one (by both sides). This is an issue about how to effectively pay for and provide access to decent healthcare for all our citizens including our aging population.
Your outrage is just laughable. And, guess what…if and when the “republican” wins, just what kind of hash do you think he (she) will make of the issues? The problems will not go away because the party of God is in control. You are throwing the moderates out of your own party…you will be left with the right wing crazies (are you one of them?) and then watch what happens. Hopefully, you will marginalize yourselves into a footnote…and let the rest of us who are sincerely concerned and would like to open rational dialogue proceed unimpeded by your drivel.
Cass, your emotions are getting the best of you to the point of near hysteria. That means you are losing your ability to make well reasoned arguments.
I am surprised by your comments in a blog of insurance people. First, group health insurers make between 3-5% profit and rates are heavily regulated by the States. You decry the injustice of cancellations and coverages, all of which are regulated by the State. And you seem to think that years of paying premiums has somtheing to do with an occurrence and claim payments. Have you completely missed the “pooled risk” concept of insurance? If you have a problem with these concepts, please petition your State for a change in the regulations.
You also hit the insurers for double digit rate increases but forget to consider the role that the medical PROVIDERS play in driving up costs. Insurers are only part of the equation.
Your screed mentions insurance “clerks” as incentivized to do harm to the customer. Come on! Big Pharma a friend to Republicans, give me a break. Perhaps you missed their support for O’Care. Do you think they did that because they like O.
You think that Gov run bureaucrats can do a better job. Are you kidding! Who will you turn to if you don’t like their decision, the courts who will deny your appeal due to gov immunity. At least in the private sector, you have a chance of the courts checking the insurer. Have you considered what this law will do to charity hospitals such as St. Jude and the Shriners and the not for profits like Blue X and role they play in our system.
All of these problems are evident even before we get to the total additional cost of O’care. Cost and quality of care are twin issues in this debate.
Lastly, please step back and look at your comments. Do you think that your boilerplate liberal rants about God, and coveting the “wealthy” are cogent points that add anything positive to the dialogue? Are they much different from those comments you rail agaisnt on the other side? I take these types of remarks to mean that you are frantic at losing the debate over progressive ideas versus conservative ideals.
If you think I sound hysterical, than what do you call our fellow bloggers like Realist? Rational? Sane? Deep thinkers?
It is just frustration with the same old catch phrases and the same old erroneous view of what “liberals” stand for.
Purely, we stand for the BEST for all our citizens that we can possibly do. Just like the conservatives messge has been perverted by media and politicians, so has the liberal message.
You make cogent points but I still disagree with some. the big corps, insurers, pharma are not playing on a level playing field with us…or rather, we are not playing on one with them. I do not expect them to handle the uninsurable; they are, after all, profit making entities. I DO expect our society to handle this responsibility for all citizens without the right wing crap flung around all the time. If you think I am espousing liberal cant, what about the other writers who cannot express their hatred for “liberals”, Obama, and “healthcare bill” quickly enough for the blog to crackle over the wires. That’s SO productive, isn’t it?
That health insureres only make “3-5%” profit is surely debatable when you see the outrageous bonuses and salaries paid to their CEOs. That they are bitterly contesting the profit limitation rule in the new bill is also instructive, if one cares to take a look.
True, states regulate, but how well do you think they can regulate some of the behemoths they are called to oversee? They are whining now that they need more resources. How well have some of these states regulated in the past? You see I am sure since you are also an insurance professional, that some states feel the imposition of silly rules suffice for true oversight…..not to mention the incredible time lags in some states. this is a NATIONAL issue, not a localized one… Why should my ability to secure and retain adequate healthcare coverage be dependent on one state one day, and if I move, on another state another day? this is not, I repeat, a state issue ultimately.
Part of our disagreement is that we are calling healthcare and its access “insurance.” Again, we would differ a lot on that issue and so we have this mish mash of government provided/paid for care vs. private insurance…this will ultimately be our doom, as, I think “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” I personally also think that this is not an area for private corporations, but so be it…it is what it is.
Again, you state rising costs due to rising costs of providers, etc. The medical profession, (more precisely their bean counters) are excruciatingly adept at find ing ways to get “the most out of the system” as well as adept at frauding the system. I see this daily as I look over WC loss runs and claims reports…WC, the new goose that laid the golden egg…so I grant you that. it is time to review all of our protocols and really look at cost/benefit without the threat of being accused of “death panels” flung from the mouth of every ignorant fool. Surely, you know that eventually, we will need to ration in some form or another…don’t be like Realist and stick your head in the sand. Or, we will have to severely limit our incursions into other countries to keep peace and to spread democracy (like that is working out well for all involved in Afghanistan)so we can afford to take care of our own, which should ALWAYS be our first priority.
Tom, you, too, are better than your half formulated arguments.
Casandra, this comes down to simply, “who do you want regulating your health care?”
You are choosing the government over the private sector because you believe the government can do a better job.
I on the other hand do not believe the government can do a better job (as evident by almost every other government run entity).
In addition, you keep pointing out that the insurance companies are to blame. What about the COST of health care. The COST of health insurance wouldn’t be as high as it is if costs were lower.
What about capping payouts on health care claims? What about incentives for small businesses to insure their employees?
Do you really think that forcing the people to buy health insurance is better than providing them with incentives instead?
Coming from a republican point of view (and not an “extremist” point of view as you mentioned), I simply believe there is more out there we can do to help this problem. COST shifting (which is what this whole OBAMACARE is) is NOT the answer.
I am sorry you feel so negatively about me personally and my beliefs. I am a fellow citizen… I wouldn’t want to imagine what it would be like to be your enemy. Good show of character… I hope this OBAMACARE works out for you and your beliefs.
Oh Cassandra, you were soooooo close near the end.
My main problem with the health insurance reform bill is that it did not adress nor help to lower the COST of health care. How many extra tests do doctors have to order in order to protect themselves from lawsuits? Why do Rx drugs cost so much here in the states then in other countries?
Also, you complain about how the CEOs of big corps get huge bonuses and how rich they are. Isn’t it the American dream to become weathly? Why do you want to make it harder for anyone to become weathly? Whenever I hear someone complaining about rich people, it just comes across as “Wah wah I’m jealous of all their sucess and they should give all their hard earned money away”.
Also, when was the last time you heard someone talk about the “death panels?” Last time I heard it was on MSNBC poking more fun at the Tea Party.
“Rationing” is a factor in every activity that involves money, unless there is an endless supply. I prefer any “rationing” done in the private to have another layer, governmnent, to be avaiable to oversee these types of decisions. “Ratinoing” done by the government is too scary a concept to contemplate for even 1 second. Imagine the case of an elderly person with macular degen in both eyes having to plead her case to a gov worker that their decision to pay for the saving of one eye meets their “quality of life” standard and their financial guide lines. Now compare that to a recent personal scenario where a coworker (a health insurance company) at my wife’s place of employment who was 57 years old was disgnosed 5 weeks ago with bone cancer and underwent 12 hours of back surgery to stabilize her cancer fractured spine, followed by chemo and radiation. All of these life saving attempts were covered by her insurer, unfortanetly, she passed away last week. Do you think for a moment that someone with this type of diagnosis and life expentancy prognosis would have been given the same treatment in a gov run system? If you do, then this is a perfect example of where we differ.
As for the bills “profit limitation”, I assume you mean the 8020 rule. A quick look at it reveals no definition of how one arrives at 80% medical payments nad 20% admin and it penalizes companies that kept their premiums low with programs that help save money, they are penalized (a low premium of $300/month and $100 in admin generates a .33% (penalty would apply)where a $500/mth premium with a $100 admin would make it compliant. Do you see the incentive. This is a prime example of what is wrong with this bill.
I am a bit confused by the Afghan comment, especially from someone on the left side of the spectrum. The left beats its chest about its concern for human rights but it seems that the support is limited to only those fortunate enought to live in the US. Surely, you can’t overlook the treatment of women, minorities, or gays in these societiies all for the sake of being able to spend more money on ourselves. The conflict in this type of position is self-evident and leaves me to wonder how you can reconcile this with liberal orthodoxy.
And this gets to me the point of making the point that we all want the “best” for all citizens and that concept is not just one that resides in the province of liberal thought. You can’t win your arguments by proclaiming that that your good intentions trump those of any dissenter.
As far as my other agruments, they stand on their own and contrast sharply with those made by the less conservative bloggers. In the end, isn’t that the essence of debate.
The main reason this is a state issue and not a federal one is because the Constitution of the United States gives certain limited powers to the federal government and reserves all other powers to the states. There is nothing in the constitution that allows this, despite the convoluted applications of the commerce clause we have seen over the years. If the administration feels they have the people on their side, then do the right thing and amend the constitution. Of course, we haven’t acutally done that since 1913 when the income tax was instituted. Since then, the government has relied on congressional and judicial fiat to concentrate power in DC.
Of course, the Teabggers will probably say that moderate isn’t good enough. They always have to find something to complain about. How about a little cheese to go with that whine. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The simplest provisions don’t begin until later this month with all the mess to follow and you believe its working. Its hard to deal with someone with irrational exuberance. What color is the sky in your fictinal world. And, you must have missed the part about the cuts in Medicare. I suppose in dreamland, that cost shifting is only a myth. I will take Teabaggers any day over Windbaggers and headinthesanders.
It’s Rosie… anyone who has ever posted on a health care article has seen her messages.
Her posts are generally broad, subjective, and lack intelligence/contributing information. Just ignore her.
Everything mentioned in this article is an estimate. And as we know, when dealing with spending and the government, those estimates are probably way wrong. I take it with a grain of salt as should you.
This whole issue is the government trying to take more control away from the people. It is an attempt made by an out of touch and power hungry administration.
A republican is going to come in in 2012 and undo as much of this as they can.
Reform is going drive Federal cost by more than 6.3% over next 8 yrs. and COBRA subsides are going to expire for unemployed and those dislocated from group insurance. Obviously health cars spending is growing at about 3xs the national growth. How will we keep up as individuals as incomes do not seem to be keeping pace – if not falling due to the recession? And, what if we see a double dip???
Reality (and I find that moniker ironic), you fail to regard the facts: WHAT freedoms are being taken from you? By what power hungry entity? If you mean the freedom to arbitrarily be cancelled by your health insurer, if you mean the freedom to see health insurance rates in the private market increase by double digits for the past almost a decade, if you mean the ability of private insurers to determine what care your physician will give subject to the whims of an insurance clerk interested in cost cutting, then I say, so be it. Where have you been all this time when our health insurance rates have been increasing well, well over the rate of inflation? Don’t you read the numerous muck raking articles about cancellation of policies once someone becomes sick despite the fact that they have paid premiums for years? Where is your outrage that coverage has been denied for many life saving procedures as “uncovered” by private insurers? How come a death panel by a private insurer is less egeregious than one by perhaps the federal government, as your ilk erroneously impute? Where is your outrage that the very, very wealthy health insurers were being subsidized to the tune of millions if not billions for the Medicare supplements? Where is your outrage that the (GOP) administration capitulated to the large pharmaceutical companies and agreed to not price negotiate costs of pharma that it pays for during the Bush years? Where was your voice then? or can you only rip apart and tear down a start at least to try to insure the uninsured? To try to curb the egeregious overstepping and practices of the private insurers? Where is your outrage over the ‘not for profit” insurance carriers that were going to raise rates 19% when they already had over three times the required and necessary reserves?
You are not a realist; you have swallowed all the propaganda lock stock and barrel. You are not thinking for yourself but mouthing the idiotic pap spewed forth by the party of NO. Why don’t you say something constructive for once and let me know that you are in fact a sentient and thinking human being and a fellow citizen of our country?
This healthcare thing should NOT be a political issue but has been perverted into one (by both sides). This is an issue about how to effectively pay for and provide access to decent healthcare for all our citizens including our aging population.
Your outrage is just laughable. And, guess what…if and when the “republican” wins, just what kind of hash do you think he (she) will make of the issues? The problems will not go away because the party of God is in control. You are throwing the moderates out of your own party…you will be left with the right wing crazies (are you one of them?) and then watch what happens. Hopefully, you will marginalize yourselves into a footnote…and let the rest of us who are sincerely concerned and would like to open rational dialogue proceed unimpeded by your drivel.
Cass, your emotions are getting the best of you to the point of near hysteria. That means you are losing your ability to make well reasoned arguments.
I am surprised by your comments in a blog of insurance people. First, group health insurers make between 3-5% profit and rates are heavily regulated by the States. You decry the injustice of cancellations and coverages, all of which are regulated by the State. And you seem to think that years of paying premiums has somtheing to do with an occurrence and claim payments. Have you completely missed the “pooled risk” concept of insurance? If you have a problem with these concepts, please petition your State for a change in the regulations.
You also hit the insurers for double digit rate increases but forget to consider the role that the medical PROVIDERS play in driving up costs. Insurers are only part of the equation.
Your screed mentions insurance “clerks” as incentivized to do harm to the customer. Come on! Big Pharma a friend to Republicans, give me a break. Perhaps you missed their support for O’Care. Do you think they did that because they like O.
You think that Gov run bureaucrats can do a better job. Are you kidding! Who will you turn to if you don’t like their decision, the courts who will deny your appeal due to gov immunity. At least in the private sector, you have a chance of the courts checking the insurer. Have you considered what this law will do to charity hospitals such as St. Jude and the Shriners and the not for profits like Blue X and role they play in our system.
All of these problems are evident even before we get to the total additional cost of O’care. Cost and quality of care are twin issues in this debate.
Lastly, please step back and look at your comments. Do you think that your boilerplate liberal rants about God, and coveting the “wealthy” are cogent points that add anything positive to the dialogue? Are they much different from those comments you rail agaisnt on the other side? I take these types of remarks to mean that you are frantic at losing the debate over progressive ideas versus conservative ideals.
You are better than that.
Tom
If you think I sound hysterical, than what do you call our fellow bloggers like Realist? Rational? Sane? Deep thinkers?
It is just frustration with the same old catch phrases and the same old erroneous view of what “liberals” stand for.
Purely, we stand for the BEST for all our citizens that we can possibly do. Just like the conservatives messge has been perverted by media and politicians, so has the liberal message.
You make cogent points but I still disagree with some. the big corps, insurers, pharma are not playing on a level playing field with us…or rather, we are not playing on one with them. I do not expect them to handle the uninsurable; they are, after all, profit making entities. I DO expect our society to handle this responsibility for all citizens without the right wing crap flung around all the time. If you think I am espousing liberal cant, what about the other writers who cannot express their hatred for “liberals”, Obama, and “healthcare bill” quickly enough for the blog to crackle over the wires. That’s SO productive, isn’t it?
That health insureres only make “3-5%” profit is surely debatable when you see the outrageous bonuses and salaries paid to their CEOs. That they are bitterly contesting the profit limitation rule in the new bill is also instructive, if one cares to take a look.
True, states regulate, but how well do you think they can regulate some of the behemoths they are called to oversee? They are whining now that they need more resources. How well have some of these states regulated in the past? You see I am sure since you are also an insurance professional, that some states feel the imposition of silly rules suffice for true oversight…..not to mention the incredible time lags in some states. this is a NATIONAL issue, not a localized one… Why should my ability to secure and retain adequate healthcare coverage be dependent on one state one day, and if I move, on another state another day? this is not, I repeat, a state issue ultimately.
Part of our disagreement is that we are calling healthcare and its access “insurance.” Again, we would differ a lot on that issue and so we have this mish mash of government provided/paid for care vs. private insurance…this will ultimately be our doom, as, I think “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” I personally also think that this is not an area for private corporations, but so be it…it is what it is.
Again, you state rising costs due to rising costs of providers, etc. The medical profession, (more precisely their bean counters) are excruciatingly adept at find ing ways to get “the most out of the system” as well as adept at frauding the system. I see this daily as I look over WC loss runs and claims reports…WC, the new goose that laid the golden egg…so I grant you that. it is time to review all of our protocols and really look at cost/benefit without the threat of being accused of “death panels” flung from the mouth of every ignorant fool. Surely, you know that eventually, we will need to ration in some form or another…don’t be like Realist and stick your head in the sand. Or, we will have to severely limit our incursions into other countries to keep peace and to spread democracy (like that is working out well for all involved in Afghanistan)so we can afford to take care of our own, which should ALWAYS be our first priority.
Tom, you, too, are better than your half formulated arguments.
Casandra, this comes down to simply, “who do you want regulating your health care?”
You are choosing the government over the private sector because you believe the government can do a better job.
I on the other hand do not believe the government can do a better job (as evident by almost every other government run entity).
In addition, you keep pointing out that the insurance companies are to blame. What about the COST of health care. The COST of health insurance wouldn’t be as high as it is if costs were lower.
What about capping payouts on health care claims? What about incentives for small businesses to insure their employees?
Do you really think that forcing the people to buy health insurance is better than providing them with incentives instead?
Coming from a republican point of view (and not an “extremist” point of view as you mentioned), I simply believe there is more out there we can do to help this problem. COST shifting (which is what this whole OBAMACARE is) is NOT the answer.
I am sorry you feel so negatively about me personally and my beliefs. I am a fellow citizen… I wouldn’t want to imagine what it would be like to be your enemy. Good show of character… I hope this OBAMACARE works out for you and your beliefs.
Correction… the state regulates healthcare… I meant to say… who do you want providing your health insurance.
Oh Cassandra, you were soooooo close near the end.
My main problem with the health insurance reform bill is that it did not adress nor help to lower the COST of health care. How many extra tests do doctors have to order in order to protect themselves from lawsuits? Why do Rx drugs cost so much here in the states then in other countries?
Also, you complain about how the CEOs of big corps get huge bonuses and how rich they are. Isn’t it the American dream to become weathly? Why do you want to make it harder for anyone to become weathly? Whenever I hear someone complaining about rich people, it just comes across as “Wah wah I’m jealous of all their sucess and they should give all their hard earned money away”.
Also, when was the last time you heard someone talk about the “death panels?” Last time I heard it was on MSNBC poking more fun at the Tea Party.
Much better.
“Rationing” is a factor in every activity that involves money, unless there is an endless supply. I prefer any “rationing” done in the private to have another layer, governmnent, to be avaiable to oversee these types of decisions. “Ratinoing” done by the government is too scary a concept to contemplate for even 1 second. Imagine the case of an elderly person with macular degen in both eyes having to plead her case to a gov worker that their decision to pay for the saving of one eye meets their “quality of life” standard and their financial guide lines. Now compare that to a recent personal scenario where a coworker (a health insurance company) at my wife’s place of employment who was 57 years old was disgnosed 5 weeks ago with bone cancer and underwent 12 hours of back surgery to stabilize her cancer fractured spine, followed by chemo and radiation. All of these life saving attempts were covered by her insurer, unfortanetly, she passed away last week. Do you think for a moment that someone with this type of diagnosis and life expentancy prognosis would have been given the same treatment in a gov run system? If you do, then this is a perfect example of where we differ.
As for the bills “profit limitation”, I assume you mean the 8020 rule. A quick look at it reveals no definition of how one arrives at 80% medical payments nad 20% admin and it penalizes companies that kept their premiums low with programs that help save money, they are penalized (a low premium of $300/month and $100 in admin generates a .33% (penalty would apply)where a $500/mth premium with a $100 admin would make it compliant. Do you see the incentive. This is a prime example of what is wrong with this bill.
I am a bit confused by the Afghan comment, especially from someone on the left side of the spectrum. The left beats its chest about its concern for human rights but it seems that the support is limited to only those fortunate enought to live in the US. Surely, you can’t overlook the treatment of women, minorities, or gays in these societiies all for the sake of being able to spend more money on ourselves. The conflict in this type of position is self-evident and leaves me to wonder how you can reconcile this with liberal orthodoxy.
And this gets to me the point of making the point that we all want the “best” for all citizens and that concept is not just one that resides in the province of liberal thought. You can’t win your arguments by proclaiming that that your good intentions trump those of any dissenter.
As far as my other agruments, they stand on their own and contrast sharply with those made by the less conservative bloggers. In the end, isn’t that the essence of debate.
The main reason this is a state issue and not a federal one is because the Constitution of the United States gives certain limited powers to the federal government and reserves all other powers to the states. There is nothing in the constitution that allows this, despite the convoluted applications of the commerce clause we have seen over the years. If the administration feels they have the people on their side, then do the right thing and amend the constitution. Of course, we haven’t acutally done that since 1913 when the income tax was instituted. Since then, the government has relied on congressional and judicial fiat to concentrate power in DC.