Say Hallelujah!

Hell no, Americans want 39% increases in their premiums. The Teapartiers demand higher insurance rates and will get them through the generosity of the millionaire CEOs who are so grateful for the support.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2010-02-21 06:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG: PATHETIC COMMENT - TRY AGAIN

A study released Friday by a major consulting firm found that premiums for Medicare Advantage plans offering medical and prescription drug coverage jumped 14.2 percent on average in 2010, after an increase of only 5.2 percent the previous year. Some 8.5 million elderly and disabled Americans are in the plans, which provide more comprehensive coverage than traditional Medicare, often at lower cost.

Tell me it ain't so.

#3 | Posted by MSgt at 2010-02-21 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag: 39% annual premium increase apologist.

Competition is good except for competition against health insurance companies, then it is bad.

The only problem with the public option is that initially it will mostly be taken advantage of by those with no recent history of healthcare and those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. the insurance money losers. There will not be enough younger healthier people in the program to offset these guaranteed costs (which is strangely the same argument health insurance co's are making for the high premium increases).

What I'm afraid of is when its shown that the public option loses money, it will be blamed on the system itself rather than the aforementioned facts, and that will kill the chance for real reform for a generation. And then we're really going to be in trouble.

While congressional approval slips to a new low.

Every time the healthcare issue comes up, the little o's approval slips too.

There will not be enough younger healthier people in the program to offset these guaranteed costs (which is strangely the same argument health insurance co's are making for the high premium increases).

What I'm afraid of is when its shown that the public option loses money, it will be blamed on the system itself rather than the aforementioned facts, and that will kill the chance for real reform for a generation. And then we're really going to be in trouble.

Newsworthy.

While congressional approval slips to a new low.

Every time the healthcare issue comes up, the little o's approval slips too.

#8 | Posted by Sniper

Thanks to the Party of NO! which has effectively gridlocked Washington. Good job Rethugs. Use of the Filibuster is up 80%. How about getting to work solving the problems of the People rather than divide Congress and the Nation for political gain.

Then Congress's approval might actually skyrocket to above 50% for a change.

Real reform in healthcare costs will come when PEOPLE not companies are responsibleto pay their bills and thoes bottom feeding lawyers quit scaming people with their 'class action' shit.

Thanks to the Party of NO! which has effectively gridlocked Washington. Good job Rethugs. Use of the Filibuster is up 80%. How about getting to work solving the problems of the People rather than divide Congress and the Nation for political gain.

Democratic leadership is ineffective. They have the ability to muscle it through, and are talking about it. Let's see what develops. Regardless, a tiny minority can't be blamed for the majorities weakness. Both sides can agree on one thing, Harry Reid is a moron.

"Thanks to the Party of NO! which has effectively gridlocked Washington."

Thank God SOMEBODY is saying "NO!"
NO more bailouts, NO government healthcare, NO Cap and Trade, NO card check bill, NO more "stimulus" bills, NO more trillion dollar deficits, NO! NO! NO!

They have nothing to lose at this point, so might as well go for it. They won't get reelected any way most likely since they have no clue how to get the economy going. This stunt is the latest reason to rock the vote.

And then we're really going to be in trouble.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

We already are.

18. Big deal. Bennett and Reid won't be in the Senate after November anyhow.

Newsworthy.
#9 | Posted by andyuhenet

Thanks. I'm just not looking forward to the passing of legislation that amounts to little more than piecemeal tinkering which in the end will play to the republicans. There is one way to achieve our ends, but it reeks too much of socialism, and our representatives are too concerned with preserving their incumbency than to really take a stand, risking it all to do the right thing.

And then we're really going to be in trouble.
#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine
We already are.
#15 | Posted by Whatsleft

Those are the kinds of things I write when I try to meet the debate as it stands, rather than how I think it should be. The former has better chances of keeping me in the conversation. The latter leaves me in the wilderness where I'm posting only to myself.

The only problem with the public option is that initially it will mostly be taken advantage of by those with no recent history of healthcare and those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. the insurance money losers. There will not be enough younger healthier people in the program to offset these guaranteed costs (which is strangely the same argument health insurance co's are making for the high premium increases).

What I'm afraid of is when its shown that the public option loses money, it will be blamed on the system itself rather than the aforementioned facts, and that will kill the chance for real reform for a generation. And then we're really going to be in trouble.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-02-22 08:17 AM

WE ARE GOING TO RAM THIS DOWN YOUR THROATS AMERICA! EVEN THOUGH THE POLLS CLEARLY SHOW YOU DO NOT WANT THIS, WE KNOW BETTER. NOW BEND OVER!

This is great news, my wife and I work our asses off to make a decent living and to get health insurance, we stay healthy and rarely need to see the Dr. This is great news that they will be jacking up my taxes to pay for some fat slob who sits on their ass all day smoking butts and eating cheetos that they paid for with food stamps.

Little o's new proposal is priced at 1 trillion. WOW! WTF happened to pay-go?

You make a great argument for single payer. Too bad it was taken "off the table."
#19 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Thanks. It depresses the hell out of me.

"Too bad it was taken "off the table."

The Public Option could someday morph into single payer. If insurance rates continue rising as they are now the same people who are now screaming no health care reform will be begging for single payer.

#18 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I'm simply taking a realistic view.

dan, how would single payer reduce the cost of insurance?

-how would single payer reduce the cost of insurance?

Proivate ins has about 30 percent overhead, Medicaid about 1 percent.

They don't have 51 votes for this Public Option.

"They don't have 51 votes for this Public Option."

In a roll call vote you may find that they do, many constituents are going to be extremely upset if their Senator kills real health care reform.

Proivate ins has about 30 percent overhead, Medicaid about 1 percent.
#27 | Posted by Corky

That's only the first way it would reduce costs.

#27 Medicaid is basically broke, more and more Drs won't accept it. Hospitals here are owed millions from it and are shutting down because the gov. hasn't paid.

24

Is there really anybody "screaming no health care reform"? Or are there just people who want it done differently than you do? I'll grant that there is a tiny group that want to see this administration fail no matter the cost, but I think the vast majority of people who are critical of the reform that has been proposed just want to see something that seems fair. Not something that was hatched behind closed doors to pay off the health care industry and does nothing for those who have insurance already.

The biggest problem we face in reforming health care isn't the critical people. It's the shills in Washington whose every move is calculated political posturing and pandering to the corporate puppeteers. The reason nothing has been done (and nothing meaningful will get done) is a lack of leadership. Not a lack of cooperation. If the dems wanted a good solid plan that fixed the problems, but didn't overreach the responsibilities of the federal government, they would have it by now. If the repubs wanted that they would have reached out and helped shape it. But clearly neither party wants that. They are not looking to fix problems. They are looking to score political points. If problems go unsolved and a few new ones are created in the process, so be it. As long as they can tell their political base that they accomplished "something" that's enough to keep the wingnuts voting.

Proivate ins has about 30 percent overhead, Medicaid about 1 percent.

#27 | Posted by Corky

If you believe a bunch of government workers oversee all of medicaid for 1% you are one stupid cor. First off, medicaid is overseen by the state for the most part. If you think they handle a $50 office visit for $0.50 you need to get out of your diaper and go to school. You must live in a very small dream world.

A world of facts and figures, Snippy.

But don't go there. It would scare you.

This is great news, my wife and I work our asses off to make a decent living and to get health insurance, we stay healthy and rarely need to see the Dr. This is great news that they will be jacking up my taxes to pay for some fat slob who sits on their ass all day smoking butts and eating cheetos that they paid for with food stamps.

#21 | Posted by fishpaw at 2010-02-22 12:10 PM

Hate to tell you fishpaw, but you are already paying for that. You are also paying for the ones who use the ER as a Doctors office.

The problem is there are lots of people who work and can't afford healthcare for themselves or their families.

Have you checked the prices of insurance lately? I have. I checked for my oldest son and his two small children. Unless you want an outrageous deductible, and you have to pay the doctors office up front for costs until your deductible is paid, you are looking at 200-800 a month. Here a doctors visit is 125-150 a pop.

It is sounding more and more like "I got mine, too bad for you"

Good post Dragn. The "I got mine, too bad for you" attitude lies at the heart of most rightwing opposition to healthcare reform. Fishpaw being a typical repulsive example.

How about I "PAID" for mine, You "PAY" for yours.

Stirsumup: The reality your attitude adamantly fails to recognize is that there are millions of honest hard working American unable to find decent employment hence unable to pay the exhorbitant. I realize that people with you mindset blame these people for their unemployment or lack of well paying employment. But us adults realize that in the real world many many good and honest people are unable to make ends meet, and it has nothing to do with laziness or irresponsibility.

The "I got mine, too bad for you" attitude lies at the heart of most rightwing opposition to healthcare reform. Fishpaw being a typical repulsive example.
#36 | Posted by moder8

But they're already paying for the uninsured, and at a higher rate than if we just insured everyone. I guess extracting a pound of misery from the uninsured is worth that higher rate.

But us adults realize that in the real world many many good and honest people are unable to make ends meet, and it has nothing to do with laziness or irresponsibility.
#38 | Posted by moder8

Lazy leaches aside, our lust for low prices for our wants guarantees that many will find insurance unaffordable.

#38 | Posted by moder8

From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Your philosophy created this mess. Hope you have deep pockets...unless...your one of those poor hardworking people that just can't find suitable employment.

Regardless, a tiny minority can't be blamed for the majorities weakness. Both sides can agree on one thing, Harry Reid is a moron.

#12 | Posted by andyuhenet

That tiny majority can still gridlock Congress and has. The use of the filibuster is up 80%! This means the Democrats have to have a super majority to pass anything. Just the threat of a filibuster derails any legislation that does not have 60 votes.

In 2009, Senate Republicans filibustered a stunning 80% of major legislation, even more than during the Clinton years. GOP leader Mitch McConnell led a filibuster of a deficit-reduction commission that he himself had demanded.

The Army, Coast Guard, CIA, DEA, DOE, EPA, police, fire, Department of Education, Libraries, Parks, Prisons and Roads are SOCIALISM. Do you not want any of these things you stupid Rethuglican fucks?

Oh, you do want them, you just believe your political future rests on destroying the Obama Presidency and would rather do that than admit to your leading complicity in the financial meltdown. Furthermore, Bush can give away drugs but Obama can't. And so it is with health care, there ain't gonna be any stinking healthcare bill unless a Rethuglican writes it. It kinda worked on Clinton, so fuck the country, full steam ahead.

P.S. I would like to see the CIA & DEA dissolved, save us a ton of money.

"Proivate ins has about 30 percent overhead, Medicaid about 1 percent."

Do you mean medicare? Medicaid is a state-based system. But define overhead. Medicare pays substantially less (about 35% less iirc) than health insurance companies. That's why many doctors doctors don't accept it. Would the single payer really be viable if doctors reused to see patients on that plan?

"Stirsumup: The reality your attitude adamantly fails to recognize is that there are millions of honest hard working American unable to find decent employment hence unable to pay the exhorbitant."

Uh, no. There are millions of americans who "can't" pay for health insurance, yet manage to pay for cell phones, cable TV, eat out, etc. When the question becomes "buy luxuries or buy insuarce?" insurance will be the first to go. It is a non-value added the service that provides no gratification in its purchase. I would virtually guaruntee that the vast majority of american can afford insurance.

If FEDGOV is going to provide services for those that claim to not be able to afford it, maybe they need to first assign a financial councelor to determine if that is truly the case. Someone with the authority to appropriate the money those folks are currently spending on things like cell phones or cable TV. Things that many regard as necessary but really aren't.

Bomber, I'd give you the cable tv, but I think cell phones are becoming more and more a necessity.

The never ending problem with many like Moder8 is the expression "can't find suitable employment." There are too many that could get a job and cover insurance but choose not too because it isn't the type of work they want. Our state tried a public health care option and it is failing miserably, medicaid is going broke and more and more hospitals are going under because they are not being reimbursed by it. There are other ways to reform HC, letting the gov. run a branch of it is not the answer.

MadBomber I'd love to see a cite for your bold proclamations. What? There aren't any. You just made it up? You were just talking out of your ass based on your politcal orientation? I'm so sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt your stupidity. You may continue mindlessly disparaging the less prosperous among us. Carry on.

Fishpaw, your post is as stupid and unfounded as MadBomber's. Just cuz you want to believe something doesn't make it true. I realize it is a lot easier (and cheaper) to blame poor and disadvantaged people for being poor and disadvantaged than it is to be willing to spend the energy to try and help rectify the situation.

How much are you giving them out of your deep pockets, hypocrite?

How about I "PAID" for mine, You "PAY" for yours.

#37 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Really? I paid for mine too, until I had a job injury that effectively took me out of the workplace.

Now I'm caught in a catch-22 situation where I can't get social security because I don't have a doctor that says I can't work, but I can't get a doctor because I have no insurance. The tests required to declare me unable to work are a new MRI, cat scans, xrays, etc. Most people don't understand how expensive they are because the insurance pays for them.

I struggle every month to pay the housepayment, utilities, etc. much less try and buy insurance. With my pre-existing conditions I am uninsurable.

So you tell me one more time "I paid for mine" and I'm going to tell you Bullshit. I paid for mine too, but I was never so mean and cruel that I would keep the same from other hardworking people.

Hey Moder8, I remember you crying about Wisgod and others degrading you on this site yet you are doing the same, typical libtard moron, if you disagree with someone call them stupid.

Nutcase nails one, of course. Yes, the army, police, library and all are pure socialism , which someone on an other thread asked me to define. I suppose Nut would turn them over to Blackwater. herm

Dragnlady: Hurry up and die. We don't want to spend a penny on your lazy irresponsible ass. - The Right

"In 2009, Senate Republicans filibustered a stunning 80% of major legislation, even more than during the Clinton years. GOP leader Mitch McConnell led a filibuster of a deficit-reduction commission that he himself had demanded."

The only reason that the dems wanted the repubs support is that they don't want to go down alone when healthcare reform adversely affects the quality or availability of the care we recieve. We have what is unquestionably the highest quality care in the world. For it to digress into something like the Canadian system would have many americans up in arms. I don't know that it would destory the democratic party, but I would make them suspect in the future. Having it a bipartisan effort would remove the blame solely from their shoulders. It's actually a very smart move by the republicans, and the lack of forward movement only shows that democrats are scared of the possible effects as well.

"P.S. I would like to see the CIA & DEA dissolved, save us a ton of money."

I would save a little less than sixty billion dollars per year, or about six percent of the ten year, trillion dollar public option. And it wouldn't save you a lot of money, it would save the taxpayers a lot of money. Unless you are in one of the top income brackets, you don't pay taxes anyway. So your wish has already come true. The CIA and DEA cost you nothing. If you are a higher income earner, I can empathise with you for having to pay for services you really don't want or think you need.

Dragnlady, struggling to pay the utilities, etc., but will sit there and tap,tap,tap on your laptop to these sites on your high speed internet.

Thanks Moder,

I needed that laugh. But it's probably truer than you know.

I currently have chronic bronchitis and can't afford the doctors visit. My only hope is that it will go away on its own.

I refuse to go to the er, I feel too many people misuse that as it is and I refuse to be part of that growing problem.

Uh, no. There are millions of americans who "can't" pay for health insurance, yet manage to pay for cell phones, cable TV, eat out, etc. When the question becomes "buy luxuries or buy insuarce?" insurance will be the first to go. It is a non-value added the service that provides no gratification in its purchase. I would virtually guaruntee that the vast majority of american can afford insurance.

I call Bullshit. Show us a link where the 40 million who cannnot afford health care have all these "luxury" items yet CHOOSE to not get health care. You just made that up or you are parroting the rethugs.

And regardless... they shouldn't have to choose anyway!

And for crying out loud... use a spell checker!

I struggle every month to pay the house payment, utilities, etc. much less try and buy insurance. With my pre-existing conditions I am uninsurable.

So you tell me one more time "I paid for mine" and I'm going to tell you Bullshit. I paid for mine too, but I was never so mean and cruel that I would keep the same from other hardworking people.

#50 | Posted by Dragonlady

We all struggle bitch. Try saving some money by cutting off the internet and selling the computer.

We have what is unquestionably the highest quality care in the world.

Since when is being ranked number 37 in the world considered the "highest quality"?

It's actually a very smart move by the republicans...

Yea... for the Republican Party. Not so much for the American People.

Hip Hip Hurrah! for Party over Country!

"We all struggle bitch. Try saving some money by cutting off the internet and selling the computer."

I would never wish illness on anyone but sometimes I am tempted. I wish Karma were a dependable means to justice.

Fishpaw,

Yes, I have internet. It's also my phone line, that I don't pay for, my son does. He wants to make sure he can contact me, considering my condition.

Now you're saying that my internet which is about 30 per month will buy insurance for someone with my conditions. Keep at it, you're losing by the minute.

You're response is laughable.

FYI, I have no cel, can't afford it, or any of those other luxuries you're touting as people buying. The only ones who buy those are the ones who can afford them.

We all struggle bitch....

#58 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

That's cute.

Dragnlady, your responses get better by the minute, you are using your phone line that your son pays for so he can get hold of you. HOW THE FUCK CAN HE GET HOLD OF YOU WHEN YOU ARE ON LINE??????

Hey Moder8, I remember you crying about Wisgod and others degrading you on this site yet you are doing the same, typical libtard moron, if you disagree with someone call them stupid.

#51 | Posted by fishpaw

Carefull. That Bi-Polar bitch will run to RCADE.

I don't know, maybe because with high speed internet you have a modem that allows you to go online and get phone calls at the same time.

You are just grasping at straws right now.

For the grace of god, they go you?

You know, I never thought in a million years that this would happen to me. I worked all my life. Supported 4 boys with little to no help from their father. Yet here I am, and dealing with it.

Maybe Fish you should take a look around you, there are people struggling everywhere, but I have a feeling you DON'T want to see.

"Bomber, I'd give you the cable tv, but I think cell phones are becoming more and more a necessity."

LAN lines are increasinly cheap. $20 a month or so. Cell phones start at about double that, and can easily get up to more than a $100 a month with data packages. One of my buddies rents a house to a woman. One day she sent him a text saying that she couldn't pay her rent than month. At the bottom of the text was the message "Sent from my iphone." iphones are not cheap to begin with, and they require a data plan on top of the normal monthly phone service plan. You get my drift.

"MadBomber I'd love to see a cite for your bold proclamations."

About what? medicare acceptance. Here's one, for starters

"In a June 2008 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before. And a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state's doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did."

That's cute.

#63 | Posted by Whatsleft

But true...

Dragnlady: Fishpaw, and his ilk, will never ever believe that they could be in your situation. Until it happens to them. At which point they fly a plane into the IRS building in Austin and blame the government for all their problems.

"Since when is being ranked number 37 in the world considered the "highest quality"?"

The WHO generates an average ranking based on several criteria. About 35% of the total score is based on quality. 65% is based on egalitarianism. In reality, a country could have a very low quality healthcare system, but if it were offered in equal form to all members, they would score much higher than a country with incredibly high quality but unequal distribution.

Fishpaw: For what it is worth, the difference between you and Wissy is that you honestly do try to make points. I happen to disagree with you almost all the time, but you do state an opinion. Wissy on the other hand is just troll, - 95% of his posts are just insults and lame attempts at making fun of other posters.

Madbomber,

I'm not going to go into what's wrong with me. Suffice it to say I've looked at any job I could do to try and get back to work. I haven't found one. Add to that who is going to hire me in my condition when there are younger more healthy people to hire.

If I was 35 or even 45 I might have a chance, not at my age though.

It's actually a very smart move by the republicans...

Yea... for the Republican Party. Not so much for the American People.

Hip Hip Hurrah! for Party over Country!

I paid for mine too, until I had a job injury that effectively took me out of the workplace.

Sorry to hear that. Were you self employed?

At which point they fly a plane into the IRS building in Austin and blame the government for all their problems.

#69 | Posted by moder8

Yeah, idiot. When we can't go see a Doctor, we fly planes into an IRS Building. You are a fucking hoot, Old Maid.

When it comes to the criteria most closely aligned with quality (responsiveness, worth 12.5%), the US was #1.

hahahahahaha, yeah fuck all those poor people who cant afford to go to the doctor.

Health care for the rich! Everyone else eat cake.

You do realize then son, that according to your free market model, most middle class people will be priced out of health care? you are aware of that correct?

Well we are number 1, shame we cant afford it.

Eberly,

No, I wasn't self-employed, though I did try a business at one point.

I worked for a government contractor at the NTC. Not surprisingly after my injury, the things I was required to do in my job changed. Too bad they didn't change them before I got hurt, or I would still be working there.

No, I wasn't self-employed, though I did try a business at one point.

I worked for a government contractor at the NTC. Not surprisingly after my injury, the things I was required to do in my job changed. Too bad they didn't change them before I got hurt, or I would still be working there.

Then why on earth is this NOT a work comp claim? You said it was a "job injury".

Eberly,

It was a work comp claim. Thanks to the Governator I got squat for it. No rehab, no continuing medical.

If you live in California don't get hurt at work.

Well time for me to leave, pain is getting to great to sit and type. You all have a great day.

but I think cell phones are becoming more and more a necessity.

#45 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Yaaaaaaaaa.. Righttttttttttttt. Are you nucking futs?

but I think cell phones are becoming more and more a necessity.

#45 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Yaaaaaaaaa.. Righttttttttttttt. Are you nucking futs?

#80 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-22 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag: nucking futs is MY department!

"I'm not going to go into what's wrong with me. Suffice it to say I've looked at any job I could do to try and get back to work. I haven't found one. Add to that who is going to hire me in my condition when there are younger more healthy people to hire."

I don't know if I would be so defeatist, if you truly do want to go back to work. Given that you sound a little older, retirement is not such a bad idea, and your kids really do owe it to you to look out for you.

But anyway, a lot of people end up making a lot of money later in life because they wind up doing something they love, as opposed to something that just generates income. And if you go on monster.com, there is still an enormous demand for tenchnical and healthcare professionals in the US. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't but it sounds like the one thing you do have is time. I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but you also have a lot of support from colleges and universities that encourage older folks to finish college or get a degree. I would hazard a guess that you could probably get any degree you wanted for next to free if you so choose. Good luck with whatever choice you do make.

"hahahahahaha, yeah fuck all those poor people who cant afford to go to the doctor."

Here's what we know. There are 45-ish million people currently uninsured. Of those, 12 million are already eligible for existing programs but have not enrolled. If they had to go to the hospital, they would be automatically enrolled, leaving the actual number of unisured at around 33 million. An additional 10 million are non-citizens. Down to 23 million. Of that 23 million uninsured, about ten million make enough money to afford insurance (earning 250% of poverty level, or $55k per year). That leaves the possibility of around 13 million that can't afford it, but presumably want it. Of course that's not even provably true. One has to assume that, if given a check for the amount it would cost to insure them, many would choose to spend the money on something else, meaning they really only want it if it's free to them and non-transferrable.

"You do realize then son, that according to your free market model, most middle class people will be priced out of health care? you are aware of that correct?"

Not at all, as I have just demonstrated.

If you live in California don't get hurt at work.

Dragon, it sounds like this is a California work comp problem more than it it is a health insurance problem.

Or are the libbies suggesting that a public option would cover work comp claims that apparently are not getting covered in the State of California?

Or are we going to have a public option for work comp too??

they manner in which liberals view what they think they will get in health insurance reform just slays me.

hahahahahaha, yeah fuck all those poor people who cant afford to go to the doctor.

Health care for the rich! Everyone else eat cake.

You do realize then son, that according to your free market model, most middle class people will be priced out of health care? you are aware of that correct?

Well we are number 1, shame we cant afford it.

#76 | Posted by truthhurts

you're not paying attention are you?

In order to defend your socialist idea, you have to lie!

If the health insurance industry is allowed to operate in the free market, prices will drop!

Everyone, EVERYONE, will be able to afford health insurance. If they can't, then they go on Medicaid.

Where's the confusion?

try to be honest.

Not at all, as I have just demonstrated.

#82 | Posted by madbomber

I am solidly middle class. I am being priced out of health care.

If the health insurance industry is allowed to operate in the free market, prices will drop!

Bullshit.

I am a perfect example of this.

Solidly middle class professional.

I am experiencing a 64% rate increase. There are a half dozen insurance companies in my state. There is no real competition, we invited all of them in, 3 came back with quotes 83%, 65% and 64% increases.

Now I wont be able to afford health insurance.

I will be forced to sell my house (if I am able and more to a smaller house-just so I can pay for the health insurance).

oh and btw I wont be considered one of those uninsured but i will be looking at around $8K out of my paycheck PLUS $3,000 deductible 10,000 Max out of pocket no vision care and a $200 deductible per person for medicine,

I wont be able to afford to use my health insurance.

that is my point, middle class will be priced out of health insurance.

"hahahahahaha, yeah fuck all those poor people who cant afford to go to the doctor."

Those poor people can simpy apply for medicare/medicaid.

I haven't carried health insurance since I became an independent contractor in 2000. I pay $85.00 per doctor visit twice a year. My prescription for blood pressure medicine is $17.00 for a 100 tablets, with a AAA discount. Had I used an insurance the price for the prescription is double. The $85.00 I pay includes a 40% discount for paying cash.

welll good for you crispee, I am happy you got your

my son is on 3 medications a month retailing around $500, so fuck me I guess

#86 | Posted by truthhurts

I said, try to be honest. I guess you are because you're ignorant to the fact that the health insurance industry is NOT operating in the free market.

So,

Again, answer my post and try to be honest.

There is no such thing as a free market

There are 6 insurance companies (at least) that sell insurance in our state.

However, there is certainly a lack of competition in the market. The interactions with our company smells of collusion.

and has has been redundantly been made clear (banking, mortgages) recently deregulation is a recipe for disaster.

my son is on 3 medications a month retailing around $500, so fuck me I guess

#89 | Posted by truthhurts

I agree. The current system is bullshit! Obama's plan is bullshit and so is the Republican non-plan because they support the corporatism of the health care industry.

There is a HUGE motivation to own the industry. Obama wants it so that he can strip our freedoms, one-by-one. The Republicans want it so that their benefactors (lobbyist) will continue to get richer and richer (that's both parties actually).

The real solution is to treat the industry as anything else and leave it up to the state to regulate as it sees fit.

You see? if you allow more insurance companies to compete, you will see costs fall.

Get the feds out of health care. I'm sitting on the fence with Medicare, but I a proned to allowing that to go away too.

banking is a perfect example of what you seem to want-ie deregulation.

The result has been higher interest rates, bizzare credit programs, mortgage bubbles, etc.

the feds are already in healthcare

Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Affairs
Indian Affairs
Prison system

They seem to have a decent record at keeping costs down.

I want the bloodsucking for profit insurance industry out of it.

welll good for you crispee, I am happy you got your

my son is on 3 medications a month retailing around $500, so fuck me I guess

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-22 04:18 PM

Got what Truth? I didn't get anything.

Have you checked into how much those meds would be for your son going to another pharmacy? Have you looked into how much you could save by paying cash instead of using your insurance provider? I am not trying to be cold and downplay your plight, just curious if you have looked into other avenues.

However, there is certainly a lack of competition in the market. The interactions with our company smells of collusion.

#91 | Posted by truthhurts

Agreed!

Insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust.

We just received our number....13.5% increase. Who's doing your negotiating, Truthhurts?

The owner of the company who is interested in keeping costs down, the committee has met with the Horizon BC BS to discuss our options but no go.

The negotiator is a very good businessman and since alot of the costs he pays for I trust that he is doing what he can.

They seem to have a decent record at keeping costs down.

I want the bloodsucking for profit insurance industry out of it.

#94 | Posted by truthhurts

But you would rather go see a doctor privately, right? And pay for it yourself, right, so you don't have to go and see the doctor that the government wants you to see and be on the "government-approved" list of medications and procedures?

Again, if the insurance industry was operating in a US Constitutional correct market (regulated by the State), then the cost would be way less than what the government is doing now.

I'm thinking that costs are roughly (on the average) 4 times as much as they should be. I say that because my doctor charges me a rate that's 25% of what she charges everyone else and still makes money--Doctors got to eat too.

Crispee, I will be looking into those things you suggest with the changes to our health insurance, hadnt had too prior to this, two of the medicines are fairly new so there is no generic to go to.

We just received our number....13.5% increase. Who's doing your negotiating, Truthhurts?

#97 | Posted by wisgod

Mine went up 21% this year.

I think they are trying to milk this duck for all it's worth!!!

well as I see it eddie, the ins. companies regulate who I see and what procedures I can get (and it will get worse when we switch to an HMO model).

As for medications, we were in the middle of an 18 mo. contract with horizon when they changed their policy about paying for non-generic. If a generic was available that is all they would pay for even if it wasnt effective (as was the case with two medicines my wife takes and cost around $300/month).

So we have to buy the medicine she needs and horizon pays like $30.

That is the nightmare scenario you talk about in your #99, that is really happening to me right now. As a result I am not scared of going to a public plan. I may be naive but anything has to be better than me not being able to afford to go to the doctor.

I view it as price gouging, similar to what the oil companies did during the iraq war and after Katrina.

HEY LOOK OIL IS SCARCE double prices, uncertainty, double the prices.

record multi billion dollar profits.

Same thing in the health insurance market-gouging.

Put your stock money in health insurance providers they will pay big the next couple years.

The one thing I don't understand...the Doctor sends my High Blood pressure perscrition to Walmart since last year. 90 days for $10.00. I used to pay a $10 co-pay.

"the feds are already in healthcare

Medicare
Medicaid
Veterans Affairs
Indian Affairs
Prison system

They seem to have a decent record at keeping costs down.

I want the bloodsucking for profit insurance industry out of it."

How precious. Of course no one in their right mind would actually want to be treated under any of those if they have a choice. But let's not let facts and quality health care get in the way of government coverage. None of the above listed systems are considered quality, and in fact all require rationing and/or a severe reduction in access to providers.

what is the quality of the health care I will shortly have? Since I cannot afford to go to the doctor, I would consider that health care pretty shitty, wouldnt you?

BTW here are the numbers

$8,000 out of paycheck, $3,000 deductible before the Health insurance covers anything besides a well visit, up to $10,000 maximum out of pocket, $200/person deductible for prescription.

So for a family of 4 that is like $18,800 if you actually need to USE your health insurance.

FUCK INSURANCE COMPANIES

FUCK THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION

Truth,

how much of this increase is a pure rate increase from the carrier versus a higher % being passed onto you from your employer?

#100 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-22 04:49 PM

As much as I disagree with you and your political views, I do hope it works out for your son.

"Of course no one in their right mind would actually want to be treated under any of those if they have a choice."

OK, try to take away any of those health care providers. Just because you pretend everyone receiving health care under those programs is unhappy doesn't make it so. Now, let's compare them anyway to those who have no health care coverage or those who's coverage costs are rising so fast they can't keep up.

"Obama wants it so that he can strip our freedoms, one-by-one."

I hear you just can't fix stupid.

#113 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-22 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Forgot she read stuff like that posted by lefties a million times when GWB was POTUS

That is the nightmare scenario you talk about in your #99, that is really happening to me right now. As a result I am not scared of going to a public plan. I may be naive but anything has to be better than me not being able to afford to go to the doctor.

#102 | Posted by truthhurts

Of course you're not scared of the health plan. Under the current cost of health care, you would benefit. However, I think that the cost of health care is a scam and they've bought off most of the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and they've gotten to Obama.

I have all the faith in the world that the price will come down if they allow more insurance companies to compete.

In my plan for health care, Insurance companies would be damn near close to non-profit.

"I am solidly middle class. I am being priced out of health care."

Lets explore that a little bit further. By solidly middle class, I am going to assume you are middle, middle class, represented by the median US income. Four a household of four, that amounts to $70,354. The average cost to insure this family would be around $13,375 per year.

If you are the average middle classer, you have a long ways to go before you are in a position where you have to choose between paying insurance and starving to death. the real problem is that increasing healthcare costs are eating into what was disposable incomes. That means not getting the newest iphone every year. Or the premium cable package. Or that new Blu Ray player. or taking the old lady to sandals.

"I will be forced to sell my house (if I am able and more to a smaller house-just so I can pay for the health insurance)."

one of the biggest arguments against the dem led plan is that they dismissed several common sense proposals that would have drastically reduced healthcare costs. The first was to mandate a common price. Most of the time. Hospitals accept a fraction of the total bill from the insurance companies. Non-insured individuals pay far more...up to four times more, for the same service. Second, they could have enacted tort reform. Something that the repubs have claimed they didn't do because lawyers fund many Dem campaigns. Another option would have been to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.

none of these would have involved the government or increased the tax burden. Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to at least attempt these measures demanding that the government seize control of healthcare?

But as to your house...you think a better option would be to shift the burden on to someone else. make them pay for your healthcare so you don't have to?

"They seem to have a decent record at keeping costs down."

The military pays doctors a fraction of what they would earn in the private sector, leading to lower prices. In addition, the vast majority of military members are healthy with reasonably healthy lifestyles. If they are not, they generally can't be in the service. I'm in the Air Force and they just initiated a no fat person policy, where if you waist is over 39 inches, you automatically fail your physical fitness test. Do it more than once and your career as an officer is probably finished. Do it more than that and you will be getting out.

Ditto with prisoners. Young, no drugs, no familes. cheap.

"I am not trying to be cold and downplay your plight, just curious if you have looked into other avenues."

Buy them from Mexico for far cheaper. Drug companies jack up prices for American consumers so they can offer them for cheaper or cost free to folks in the developing world.

$8,000 out of paycheck, $3,000 deductible before the Health insurance covers anything besides a well visit, up to $10,000 maximum out of pocket, $200/person deductible for prescription.

So for a family of 4 that is like $18,800 if you actually need to USE your health insurance.

#107 | Posted by truthhurts

Sure sounds like your employeer isn't kicking much in. If they won't tell you, try to get a Cobra Quote. Then you'll know.

$8,000 out of paycheck,

if you received a $64% increase, then this means you were paying less than $5,000.

right?

"I want the bloodsucking for profit insurance industry out of it."

profit margins for healthcare providers are very low. At most, you could cut costs by 4%-5% by demanding they operate on a non-profit basis. I would encourage you to take a look at their financials.

Truthhurts must have the worst healthcare plan in the US. Hell, in college I paid $85 a month and got a much better deal than what he's getting.

As much as I disagree with you and your political views, I do hope it works out for your son.

#111 | Posted by crispee_oc

Ditto.

"Obama wants it so that he can strip our freedoms, one-by-one."

I hear you just can't fix stupid.

#113 | Posted by danni

I know, Danni. I've been very patient with you over the last few weeks, but your love for your messiah is keeping you stupid.

"FUCK THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION
#109 | Posted by SpokaneJim"

FUCK SPOKANEJIM AND THE ICEDANCER HE RODE IN ON.

"As much as I disagree with you and your political views, I do hope it works out for your son."

Drug companies also offer free drugs to those that qualify under indigent drug programs. If you are spending $800 dollars a month on drugs alone, you might qualify for such a program. That's about 75% of both my vehicle notes.

"but your love for your messiah is keeping you stupid.
#122 | Posted by eddie"

"I'm sitting on the fence with Medicare, but I a proned to allowing that to go away too.
#92 | Posted by Eddie"

You a proned, huh?

I've been anti-Ned for years.

Lets explore that a little bit further. By solidly middle class, I am going to assume you are middle, middle class, represented by the median US income. Four a household of four, that amounts to $70,354. The average cost to insure this family would be around $13,375 per year.

If you are the average middle classer, you have a long ways to go before you are in a position where you have to choose between paying insurance and starving to death. the real problem is that increasing healthcare costs are eating into what was disposable incomes. That means not getting the newest iphone every year. Or the premium cable package. Or that new Blu Ray player. or taking the old lady to sandals.

with all respect you are insane, that $70K is pretax so basically take home is around $60K best case, now 25% of that is dedicated solely to health insurance? that is not manageable and I believe that middle class should get more quality of life than living paycheck to paycheck

btw thanks for all the sentiment, it is appreciated but rest assured my kids will be taken care of.

the big pain is the MASSIVE increase. Imagine a single year pay cut of around $10,000 due solely to changes in health insurance. well that has me pissed.

"with all respect you are insane, that $70K is pretax so basically take home is around $60K best case, now 25% of that is dedicated solely to health insurance? that is not manageable and I believe that middle class should get more quality of life than living paycheck to paycheck"

So then you believe that there is someone else wou there whose responsibility it is to subsidize your standard of living? The doctors, perhaps? Maybe the pharmaceutical companies.

Also, no one makes you get health insurance. Or at least I'm guessing they don't. Would you be better off without it?

And think about this: wouldn't right now be a great time to become a doctor? not only would you be able to provide at least limited healthcare for your family, you are virtually garunteed a starting income approaching $150k per year. Likely even more unless the government imposes wage ceilings.

The bottom line is that the healthcare quality you now enjoy will not get less expensive. Cutting costs will be realized in degraded service and more volitile healthcare markets. It's also possible that costs would, in fact go up.

The bottom line is that the healthcare quality you now enjoy

actually as i have stated i will no longer enjoy health care i have been priced out of the market.

has happened to me presumably it will hit you eventually

So then you believe that there is someone else wou there whose responsibility it is to subsidize your standard of living?

i am subsidizing the weath of the HI CEO'S ETC and i dont like it. the choice as i see our society is wealthy becoming richer or the middle class having access to health care

"actually as i have stated i will no longer enjoy health care i have been priced out of the market."

Really? Given the earlier example, you would still have $45k left...and you can't live on that?! You could live on half if you had to, and surivive on even less.

"has happened to me presumably it will hit you eventually"

Actually no. I'm in the military. Which is yet one more option you could explore if you truly were in dire healthcare straits.

I have to be honest, it sounds to me like you are willing to sacrifice healthcare to maintain a standard of luxury. Or at least let someone else pay for your healthcare so you can maintain your current standard.

"the choice as i see our society is wealthy becoming richer or the middle class having access to health care"

Uh, you could cut out CEO pat altogether and it's not going to affect your rates at all. Consider Aetna. They run a profit margin of about 4.4%. The CEO was paid $2.31 million in 2008 with no stock options exercised. That's approximately .007% of total revenues. You would be able to save $.98.

Played golf with a gentleman (aged 52) last week. He smoked 3 packs of cigarettes/day for about 35 years. Worked for a chemical company for about 28 years and took a nice buyout about 2 years ago---he then went for SS disability because of breathing difficulties and got it "on the first try"---gets $1900/month and they gave him $10,000 in addition since they told him he could have applied earlier and for the time it took to get through the system---he owns his house free and clear and has a decent net worth---this guy could be a cause celebre for the left----America, what a country.

well gee i am in my 40's and have lots of obligations, mortgage, etc that will be effected by my ability to pay because of a drastic increase in what I pay for HI, but I suppose I could have considered another occupation, I figured bing a professional engineer with a master's degree would permit me to have the good things in life like food for my children.

sorry but im a little old to join te military, but hey im sure your comments about health insurance are not influenced by the fact that hte federal govt pays your bennies.

Aetna wouldnt even submit a quote for our companies insurance.

Then Congress's approval might actually skyrocket to above 50% for a change.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy
Dildoboy, the dems could not get it done when they had a super majority, people dont want this shit and your comotose dreams dont make it not so.

"well gee i am in my 40's and have lots of obligations, mortgage, etc that will be effected by my ability to pay because of a drastic increase in what I pay for HI, but I suppose I could have considered another occupation, I figured bing a professional engineer with a master's degree would permit me to have the good things in life like food for my children."

You should be good occupationally. Engineers are still in very high demand. Do you ever look at Monster.com for engineering job listings?

"sorry but im a little old to join te military..."

Maybe. The military does occasionally take older folks that have lots of professional experience. I don't know if engineering applies, but it might be worth a shot. As a mid level captain (14 yrs federal svc), I make about $91k a year in cash benefits. If you dumped in the value of my healthcare it would probably be about $105k or so.

"but hey im sure your comments about health insurance are not influenced by the fact that hte federal govt pays your bennies."

And again, they can pay for yours as well, if you so choose. It's a somewhat restrictive system, and it doesn't cover a lot of things that a private plan would, but what it does cover it covers completely.

"Aetna wouldnt even submit a quote for our companies insurance."

Why? Do they not want your business? Frankly I'm somewhat surprised you don't have a gold plated healthcare plan. Engineers are not always easy to find.

I know that healthcare is a hot button issue for a lot of people, and maybe you are embellishing slightly because of your personal beliefs. I'm quite positive that, if your plan is as bad as you say, you could do much better with a different employer. But with all due respect, employment decisions are not made on income or benefits alone. You work where you do for a reason, and although you may not like the fact that your costs are increasing, you still like it better than having to move to a new job or new town.

Proivate ins has about 30 percent overhead, Medicaid about 1 percent.

#27 | Posted by Corky

If you believe a bunch of government workers oversee all of medicaid for 1% you are one stupid cor. First off, medicaid is overseen by the state for the most part. If you think they handle a $50 office visit for $0.50 you need to get out of your diaper and go to school. You must live in a very small dream world.

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-22 12:54 PM | Reply

So what is the overhead rate for Medicaid? Link please.

$1900/month and they gave him $10,000 in addition since they told him he could have applied earlier and for the time it took to get through the system---he owns his house free and clear and has a decent net worth---this guy could be a cause celebre for the left----America, what a country.

#133 | Posted by matsop at 2010-02-22 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag

Yeah, that $22,800 annual jackpot is astounding. Way to go dude!

When did it become OK in America to make such an outrageous profit on the sickness and misery of other humans? What is in that for you right wingnuts?

California's largest for-profit health insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, is expected to raise premiums by 30 to 39 percent on an unknown number of its 800,000 members.

WellPoint, who owns Anthem, as a whole posted a profit, recording net income of more than $4.7 billion in 2009

WellPoint's profit margin at 7.3 percent, the highest of the five big insurers.

As the nation struggled last year with rising healthcare costs and a recession, the five largest health insurance companies racked up combined profits of $12.2 billion -- up 56 percent over 2008, according to a new report by liberal healthcare activists.

This is the problem with running the Health-care industry to make Profits. The PROFITS drive the industry not the actual Health-Care!

They are driven to raise prices for their health plans to satisfy INVESTORS, which in turn drives away customers.

"It is a terrible thing to run your business for Wall Street," Skolnick said.

"It creates very bad incentives, and it ultimately prevents you from doing the thing that is in the best long-term interest of your business. . . . There is no way that as long as these businesses are publicly traded, they can have the best interest of their customers at heart."

But, you ALL know better right?

www.columbustelegram.com

We need a PUBLIC OPTION NOW!

"Dildoboy, the dems could not get it done when they had a super majority, people dont want this shit and your comotose dreams dont make it not so.
#135 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2010-02-22 09:33 PM"

"the dems" did not have a super majority.

Regardless of whatever comatose dream you believe, it doesn't make it so.

RE: #135 and reinsert forgets that the Repubes (the Party of NO!) have used the filibuster to effectively block any legislation in Congress creating gridlock.

Use of the filibuster is up 80%! Even the threat of a filibuster can stop legislation dead in its tracks.

And even the Rethugs admit that sometimes the People do not know what is good for them. Did the People support the war in Iraq?

How soon they forget!

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it's not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ: So? You don't care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

This opposition to the war is not a "fluctuation" in public opinion. The American public has steadily turned against the war since the 2003 invasion. According to a new CNN poll, just 36 percent of the American public believes that "the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over -- down from 68 percent in March 2003, when the war began."

sound familiar?

It probably won't happen, but I would LOVE it if some form of the public option gets enacted.

It probably won't happen, but I would LOVE it if some form of the public option gets enacted.

#142 | Posted by moder8

I seriously doubt it will happen, much less Obamacare as it currently stands.

The public is MASSIVELY opposed to Obamacare. This last-ditch effort on his part will probably go nowhere. I think there are barely enough Dems who have no stomach for subverting the will of the public this fragrantly that they will put the kebosh on this nonsense.

We need to start over on this.

"ObamaCare" doesn't include a public option, which still has majority support among Americans.

#141 | Posted by donnerboy

Is it your argument that due to poor polling the Bush Administration should have pulled out of Iraq? Is it then also your argument that Obama and the Dems should pull health scare reform? Are they both right, or are they both wrong?

* In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option.

* In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option.

* In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option.

* In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option.

* In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option.

* In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

*In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option.

* In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.

ObamaCare" doesn't include a public option, which still has majority support among Americans.

#144 | Posted by Corky

Um, no it doesn't.

When the house version passed, Obamacare had negative numbers. The House version had a public option.

The August town-halls were not a figment of the imagination - the public does NOT want this shit. Time to start over.

Time to learn how to read a poll....

#144 | Posted by Corky
#146 | Posted by Corky

The problem with this polling is the question. Typically the question is a version of "Do you support a government funded option to compete against private insurance companies?" They are never asked anything in regard to cost, efficiency, or what happens to private companies when government can undercut costs because they can run the company at a loss. Try finding real polls with the proper questions asked. Questions make polls, which is why you're able daily to find some poll somewhere that proves what you want to prove.

"When the house version passed, Obamacare had negative numbers."

I've seen enough polls that go both ways to realize it isn't about the answers, it's about the questions.

Ask if someone wants another decade of health costs outpacing inflation for the average worker by 4-to-1, or if they'd prefer a public option to serve as a counterpoint to capricious insurance monopolies' rate hikes, and the favorable response to a public option will be staggering.

"The August town-halls were not a figment of the imagination"

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Because that was a cross-section of the American public. Riiiiiiiiight.

The poll the Guardian references was commissioned by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Like I said above, it's all about what questions were asked. Take a look at what they think are real questions. 'nuf said.

#149

Except for a slight dip in the summer, these polls have averaged about 57 percent in favor nationally, no matter how one asks the question.

Denial is an ugly thing to have to watch, lol.

"Ask if someone wants another decade of health costs outpacing inflation for the average worker by 4-to-1, or if they'd prefer a public option to serve as a counterpoint to capricious insurance monopolies' rate hikes, and the favorable response to a public option will be staggering."

Herein lies the problem with such polling. A loaded question based on a false premise designed to provide a predetermined answer. Any yahoo can create a poll with a given result by such methods. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee poll is one such example. Fake poll with fake numbers.

from the link

Now, you can take these with a grain of salt if you want, given who commissioned the surveys. But they're basically in line with a raft of polling since this whole thing started. The public option is supported by majorities in virtually all blue and swing states, and even in a few reddish ones.

The problem is you could never persuade nervous moderate Democrats that these numbers are real. They live in a universe of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom, lobbyists' dollars and cable TV talking points in which the public option is a third rail. When they consider their constituents' views, they tend to be overly mindful of the furious conservatives, who represent a minority but know how to act like they represent a majority.

one of the last national polls on the subject.... a few months ago.... of course, those Commie Pinko Fags at Reuters prolly loaded the question, lmao!

Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation

"A loaded question based on a false premise"

What false premise?

Medical costs for the average worker have risen at 4 times the inflation rate over the last decade.

Without some counterpoint, what's to stop this next decade from seeing the same types of increases? If 9/11 didn't stop the insurance companies, and instead led to HUGE increases, why would anyone believe the next ten years will be any different?

The reason you're seeing double-digit rises now, for example is the same reason you did after 9/11: insurance companies can't get guaranteed returns fro the market or the banks to pay off their annuity contracts, so they get it from the consumers...because they can.

False premise = capricious insurance monopolies' rate hikes

"Capricious" = mere opinion. There are over 1800 health care insurance companies in the US. Where's the monopoly? How many car companies are there? How many package shipping companies are there? How many cell phone companies? How many internet service providers? How many TV cable companies? The problem isn't a monopoly, it's state and federal regulation that limits the individual's access to competition. It's your state that is limiting your access to insurance companies. Let's start there.

to = two

#141 | Posted by donnerboy

Is it your argument that due to poor polling the Bush Administration should have pulled out of Iraq? Is it then also your argument that Obama and the Dems should pull health scare reform? Are they both right, or are they both wrong?

#145 | Posted by SpokaneJim

What I am showing you is the hypocrisy of the argument that The public is MASSIVELY opposed to Obamacare.

First of all I don't agree that they are Massively opposed as most don't even understand it. What they are opposed to is what the Rethugs Rethug representation of Health-Care reform... i.e. death panels, longer waits, bigger government, less care, increased costs and such.

Regardless, the Republicans supported the idea of a War of aggression with Iraq EVEN when the majority of the public was MASSIVELY (2/3rds) opposed to it.

so you tell me which is wrong... "Staying the Course" in a War where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans will surely die or "Staying the Course" where MILLIONS (UP TO 40 MILLION AMERICANS) will get a chance to live a healthy life!?

"False premise = capricious insurance monopolies' rate hikes"

Were you asleep after 9/11?

Americans were taking it on the chin. And rather than take the hit along with the rest of us, insurance companies with annuity contracts decided to extract the extra pound of flesh from the health side.

If rate raises can be set by things other than cost increases, I'd call that capricious. Or predatory, take your pick.

"There are over 1800 health care insurance companies in the US. Where's the monopoly?"

In most areas, less than 1% of those are available.

"It's your state that is limiting your access to insurance companies. Let's start there."

Well, the R's plan is to allow competition across state lines, as long as the issuing state gets to set the rules. Just to see how tethered to reality you are, do you foresee any problems with that?

"But hey, let's go after big business. I know there are things we need to address about health care and insurance. But we're in effect treating the symptoms instead of going after the problem."

Seeing as 30% medicaid/medicare costs are attributed to smoking, alcohol and the diseases they spurn, how much will that cost rise adding another 30-40 million people under the guise of healthcare reform? One would think in a 2000 page bill that this would be addressed.

'America Ranked World's Laziest Nation'

There's a "no shit Sherlock" moment.

"the rethugs rethug" ... heh...just one rethug at a time please!

""There are over 1800 health care insurance companies in the US. Where's the monopoly?" - - In most areas, less than 1% of those are available."

That's exactly my point. There is no reason why individual should have so little access. As for the home state creating the regulations, that's not that unusual. Someone has to do it, and corporate law usually requires that corporations follow their home state's laws, commensurate with federal regulations. That said, corporations have to also abide by state regulations in each state in which they wish to do business. It would not be out of line to require insurance companies to meet both requirements, but what happens when there are conflicts? Herein lies the problems with a federal system of government. A nation-wide corporation may have more than 50 different government regulators. Gosh, and we wonder why things get so expensive. Great for politicians and lawyers, though.

"extra pound of flesh"

#163 | Posted by crispee_oc

Especially since the poor have a higher percentage of obesity, smokers, and drinkers than the middle and upper classes.

#167...

Sadly this isn't even in the bill and should be the first step in the so called reform process.

This was a thread about 11 months ago and IMO is the real form of "public option" without the Government. Of course the State of New York was trying to shut it down.

"Especially since the poor have a higher percentage of obesity, smokers, and drinkers than the middle and upper classes."

So those folks should just die. Fuck 'em - The Right

Well, the R's plan is to allow competition across state lines, as long as the issuing state gets to set the rules. Just to see how tethered to reality you are, do you foresee any problems with that?

#162 | Posted by Danforth

I'm confused. We have a plan?

#169
Crisp,
I was thinking the same thing at the time, then I wondered what would happen if all doctors tried this. While he's the only one trying it, it works great, but if everyone did it, they'd never be able to earn a living.

This seems to be all about avoiding taxation (i.e., I don't want to pay for healthcare for your lazy ass). Where did the righties get the idea that you can live in a civilized country for free? Taxation is the price of living in civilization.

But let's do it your way. You can step over the dead and diseased bodies in the streets and the spread of disease that would result (got your own private water supply, do you?). Of course the only ones that will be able to avoid sending their kids to public school (where they would get exposed to these diseases) are those rich enough to afford private school.

I guess the people who pick up your trash and clean your offices and prepare your food (oops, there's that disease issue again) don't deserve to make enough money to live a decent life in the "richest country in the world" or to have access to health care or be able to educate their kids to have a better life.

Admit it, your favorite form of government would be feudalism! Just bring back slavery!

#172...

Why do you say that Hag? According to the article he says he can.

He says he can afford to charge such a small amount because he doesn't have to process mountains of paperwork and spend hours on billing.

"If they leave me alone, I can serve thousands of patients," he said.

Crisp,
I was thinking the same thing at the time, then I wondered what would happen if all doctors tried this. While he's the only one trying it, it works great, but if everyone did it, they'd never be able to earn a living.

#172 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-02-23 04:34 PM

I am trying to find the link which said he and other doctors have grouped up and have about 6000 patients.

-how would single payer reduce the cost of insurance?

Proivate ins has about 30 percent overhead, Medicaid about 1 percent.

#27 | Posted by Corky

You and the rest of the Libs who want public option are dishonest. We tell you again and again that the way to lower costs in the industry is to get rid of the anti-trust exemption.

This will lower costs to much below what Medicaid can do it at.

If you encourage competition in the free market, then the price will fall.

Well, the R's plan is to allow competition across state lines, as long as the issuing state gets to set the rules. Just to see how tethered to reality you are, do you foresee any problems with that?

#162 | Posted by Danforth

I'm confused. We have a plan?

#171 | Posted by wisgod

I don't think Republicans have a plan. They are waiting to see this fail and then wait to see if they can just push off reform indefinately. The neocon Republicans are in bed with the Corporations and are well funded by them to keep the laws just the way they are.

"extra pound of flesh"

www.politifact.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
blogs.abcnews.com
abcnews.go.com
blogs.dailymail.com

#166 | Posted by SpokaneJim

You mean the messiah is a LIAR!??!

Say it isn't so!!!

"I don't think Republicans have a plan"

You guy need to get your talking points together and get back to me.

One of the aspects of the Rs "plan" is to allow the issuing state to write the insurance regulations, which will touch off a race to the bottom, inducing the hardest job-hit state to allow the insurers to write the most insurer-friendly legislation.

The proposal is the equivalent of throwing water on a grease fire.

which will touch off a race to the bottom

Is that code for competition?

Mysterytoy-
re: Is that code for competition?

#180 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-02-23 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

No more than credit card companies all setting up shop in the state with the lowest standards is "code" for bend over, bitch.

"One of the aspects of the Rs "plan" is to allow the issuing state to write the insurance regulations, which will touch off a race to the bottom, inducing the hardest job-hit state to allow the insurers to write the most insurer-friendly legislation."

That's exactly what I was going to say.

"Questions make polls, which is why you're able daily to find some poll somewhere that proves what you want to prove."

I haven't actually seen what the questions being asked are. If, for example, you asked "Do you support medicaid or medicare," and the person answer yes, then you can rightly claim that this person supports a public option. Of course in this case it would be public options already in place.

I would like to see the poll that asks, "would you accept lower quality healthcare for lower prices," or "would you accept nine month waits on non-critical surgeries," or "would you accept that 35% of doctors would not take you on as a patient under a public plan."

I think the answers would be very, very different. If americans were forced to trade our system in for Canada's, there would be a civil war. Becuase the quality is substantially lower. We're not used to a two week wait for something as simple as an MRI.

But honestly, it seems to me that if the public option is as popular as the left claims, it would have already been implimented. 65%-ish is huge. You could almost get a constitutional change with that amount of support. That's kinda why I think the polls are misleading. If they weren't, then every dem in the country would be lining up behind this plan, knowing they were going to be the heroes of the american people.

BTW, if this poll is true, it would mean that in addition to the 21% of self indentified liberals, a huge number of independants or conservatives also support the measure. Conservatives make up 40% of the population and 35% are independants. So it's not a left/right think by any means.

Which again, makes me question the accuracy. Does anyone know a conservative that supports the healthcare takeover. There would have to be for these numbers to be correct.

"What they are opposed to is what the Rethugs Rethug representation of Health-Care reform... i.e. death panels, longer waits, bigger government, less care, increased costs and such."

You mean those things that will emerge as a function of Obama care? Should they not be against them?

"Regardless, the Republicans supported the idea of a War of aggression with Iraq EVEN when the majority of the public was MASSIVELY (2/3rds) opposed to it."

Support for the war in 2003 was up has high as 70%.

"So those folks should just die. Fuck 'em - The Right"

Is a little personal responsibility too much to aske for? How about this. In order to qualify for a publicly funded option, you would need to not smoke, drink, in moderation, and have a waist size of less than 39 inches. If you can't meet those simple requirements, then you would not be covered.

"Where did the righties get the idea that you can live in a civilized country for free? Taxation is the price of living in civilization."

Since when did healthcare become a determinant of whether a country is civilized or not. DO you think there were any discussion amongst the founding fathers about including provisions for a public option, so that their new country would qualify as "civilized." I'm guessing not. It's probably because then, like today, healthcare was available to pretty much everyone. In fact, I'm guessing you can have the same level of healthcare today that you could have had in 1776, and for the same cost even. Of course that's not what everyone wants. They want to be able to benefit from the hard work of the doctors and drug companies, they just don't want to pay for it. Because if they do, it will mean sacrificing the cable tv and ipones.

"Admit it, your favorite form of government would be feudalism! Just bring back slavery!"

They're trying. It's called socialism. Where the wealth created by the productive classes is siphoned off to all the others. Maybe you'll even get your own Stalin out of the deal...you know, someone who knows how to deal with reactionaries and speculators...the "old fashioned way."

BTW, health insurance isn't mandatory, yet. If you don't want to support the profits of big business, then don't pay for health insurance. Problem solved.

On to more important things...I wonder if Obama will block any increased in my car insurance. I might have to get rid of HBO if it goes up any more.

"Why do you say that Hag? According to the article he says he can."

Crisp, he can do that as long as nobody else is competing with him in the same fashion. Once enough doctors try to do this, they have to compete for a limited number of patients (geographically speaking), which will drive his already ridiculously low prices further down to an unsustainable level. What I'm thinking is that its similar to the Kantian categorical imperative. An analogy for you: if you stand up in a theater you get a better view, but if everyone does this, you are back where you started.

re: Support for the war in 2003 was up has high as 70%.

Posted by madbomber at 2010-02-23 06:22 PM

Of course it was. Iraq had WMD, was somehow connected to 9/11, was training al Qaeda in bombmaking and poison gasses, and had weapon drones capable of striking our shores, and was reconstituting its nuclear program and we couldn't wait for the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

All bullshit, of course.

"No more than credit card companies all setting up shop in the state with the lowest standards is "code" for bend over, bitch."

No one forces you to get a credit card, or health insurance. And if they offer a product that consumers don't like, then consumers won't buy it.

I will say this one more time and hope that it doesn't go ignored. the quickest way to cut consumer costs is to make doctors charge a universal price to both insured and uninsured. If you have ever looked at your doctors bill, they charge one amount. Let's say $500. The Insurance company will pay a fraction of that amount...say $160. And the doctor accepts it. Just like the proposal with drug companies, enact legislation that forces them to charge one price and you could cut costs by 50%-60%. Maryland has already done this, or so I hear. I don't think the left likes it because it denies them the opportunity for control. I'm not sure why I haven't heard more conservative comments on it.

Support for the war in 2003 was up has high as 70%.

#183 | Posted by madbomber

well I highly doubt that but alot of the support they did have was because the american people were being lied to you.

exhibit A Powell's speech to the UN

Exhibit B: Rice's mushroom cloud

Exhibit C: Cheney's echo chamber

Echibit D: Bush's 2003 SOTU

If you encourage competition in the free market, then the price will fall.

#176 | Posted by Eddie

do you think the insurance companies would allow that?

re: No one forces you to get a credit card, or health insurance. And if they offer a product that consumers don't like, then consumers won't buy it.

They will if the ONLY choice is an inferior one.You pretend competition where there is none.

I would like to see the poll that asks, "would you accept lower quality healthcare for lower prices," or "would you accept nine month waits on non-critical surgeries," or "would you accept that 35% of doctors would not take you on as a patient under a public plan."

you are describing out current health care system.

Crisp, he can do that as long as nobody else is competing with him in the same fashion. Once enough doctors try to do this, they have to compete for a limited number of patients (geographically speaking), which will drive his already ridiculously low prices further down to an unsustainable level.
#185 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-02-23 06:27 PM

I am not sure I understand your analogy Hag. I also think you are missing the point. He is able to provide quality healthcare at a fraction of the price. Why? Because he doesn't have to waste time going through the redtape and keeping his overhead lower allows him to make it affordable. The fact is people have found a way to avoid the rising costs of insurance and without government interference. Again, his patients benefit and I am not sure how anyone can argue this concept or model in reagards to healthcare reform.

Don't states already write their own insurance regulations? Isn't that perhaps why some states are cheaper?

If you won't let me buy my health insurance from another state doesn't that make you the party of no?

You want cheaper health care but you won't let me buy it where it's cheaper. What's wrong with that picture?

NYC transit to lay off 1,000 employees...

San Fran expected to cut 1,000 school employees...

I wonder how many people will have to be layed off to pay for this new entitlement.

You and the rest of the Libs who want public option are dishonest. We tell you again and again that the way to lower costs in the industry is to get rid of the anti-trust exemption.

And we will tell you again... The way to lower costs in the industry is to actually get rid of the industry. It is criminal that the Health Care industry has been allowed to profit off of the misery and sickness of Americans. Health-Care should be a Not For Profit Industry. That is not to say that doctors shouldn't receive a good working wage it means Wellpoint does NOT need to make 4.7 billion off of the overhead of managing the Health Care of American citizens.

so say after me...

We want a Public Option and we want it NOW!

#162 | Posted by Danforth

I'm confused. We have a plan?

#171 | Posted by wisgod

Yes they didn't tell you? You didn't get the Waterloo Memo?

"The Republican Plan" is to make any Health Care Reform Legislation FAIL by hook or crook or any means in order to keep and consolidate the power of the current Health Care Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies in order to eliminate any chance of real Health Care Reform.

Republicans have a plan for health care reform that not one single Democrats knows about. They don't know because they aren't listening.

If you haven't heard the term Peak Government, you will in the years immediately. That's the point when government debt explodes into mass bankruptcy.

Here's the kind of bullshit that feeds it. Fools like this have no idea what it costs, how it will be paid, who will pay or if it can be paid. Nor do they want to know.
We want a Public Option and we want it NOW!
#197 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

#133 | Posted by matsop

It's a shame. It seems as though he is almost braging about it. Here's the deal though. Unless he's made some major changes to his life style, chances are he won't make to retirement age. Generally his type never do. I'm neither ashamed nor proud that I receive SS disability. Bottom line is I do. It's a good thing when truly needed. Had they settle on my first try they would have paid about the same in back payments. Approx $10,000. Instead most states automatically deny the first application and drag it on for several years. 4 years in my case. Now without going into too much detail, heart disease, childhood diabetes, stage 3 kidney failure, just to list the most severe, and over 300 pages of doctor and hospital reports should have been a no brainer. Yep the man is disabled. Bets are he won't live 12 months. So they deny hoping you die wo they won't have to pay. Bad choice. Against all odds, ooops I'm still here. Now the local SSD people are pissing they're pants because they owe me over $52,000. Am I a lefty, liberal, progressive? No Just a middle of the road
slightly to the right republican? I don't know it confuses me at time too. Am I bragging? Nope. Had the worlds greatest job before the heart quit. I would go back to it in a heart beat if I could but the state government and company doesn't want a diabetic with heart disease behind the wheel of pre-production test vehicles. Between you and me...Toyota's problems are electronic. Mercedes got that whole electric gas pedal down pat first try. Just as they got the electronic braking on the 1st try as well.

Here's the kind of bullshit that feeds it. Fools like this have no idea what it costs, how it will be paid, who will pay or if it can be paid. Nor do they want to know.

We want a Public Option and we want it NOW!
#197 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY
#200 | Posted by Ray

You mean kinda like the War in Iraq was "paid" for? So we have Trillions for War and Death but none for Health and Life...right?

And Ray....I don't believe for a second that Health Care provided by the Public Option would be FREE anyway. I am paying for Health Care now and I would be paying for Health care if I had the Public Option.

The difference would be that my premiums and co-pays would not be going to the 4.7 billion in profits for the CEOs or "overhead" of Wellpoint. It would be going to my Health Care as it should be.

4.7 billion in profits for the CEOs or "overhead" of Wellpoint.

That's chump change compared to how much money was wasted in medicare fraud.

#202 | Posted by donnerboy

Can it be paid for like a single payer system? Medicare only cost about $100 a month. Why not extend that coverage? People bitch because they say the Gov. will dictate coverage amounts and doctors you can visit but the Insurance companies already do that, and for a much higher premium.

I would also like to say that all of you that believe as I do and want a Public Option to help bring the Health Insurance Companies to theire knees. Call their bluff and please call your Senators by tomorrow afternoon. WE are trying to reach one million calls by about this time tomorrow.

Go to this link and sign up for the "virtual march".

Medicare only cost about $100 a month.

what are you talking about?

You mean kinda like the War in Iraq was "paid" for? So we have Trillions for War and Death but none for Health and Life...right?

Don't try to stereotype me. I have no use for partisan politics or anything else that expands the size of the State. Our government has gotten too big and too powerful. It's very dangerous and destructive.

The purpose of a public option is to drive private insurers out of business. I know enough about economics and finance to know this this country is in debt beyond all means. Further government expansion into health care is only going to accelerate the timing of its bankruptcy.

The difference would be that my premiums and co-pays would not be going to the 4.7 billion in profits for the CEOs or "overhead" of Wellpoint. It would be going to my Health Care as it should be.

That's a ridiculous argument.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Reconciliation, the "Nuclear Option" was established in 1974 as a means for Congress to DECREASE TAXES ON THE PEOPLE, NOT INCREASE the national debt and indebtedness of the American people.

The Congress will be breaking its own law to pass health care reform which will INCREASE FEES, PENALTIES, TAXES on the people with reconciliation, 51 votes in the Senate.

So much for "promise to protect and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States" that these criminals running our government vow to uphold when they take office.

"They will if the ONLY choice is an inferior one.You pretend competition where there is none."

Competition implies that they will buy out of necessity. is there a law that someone must buy health insurance? It is a convenience. A hedge.

"you are describing out current health care system."

Negative. The average wait for an MRI at virtually any hospital in the US is the time it takes for the doc to determine you need an MRI. In Canada, it's two weeks. One of the side effects of our high priced health care is that we have a much more robust infrastructure able to handle more patients. One of the ways Canada saves money is by doing more with less. And just for fun, 50% of Canadian administrators said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery, versus none in the US.

The CEO of Health Network, Toronto, had this to say in comparing the two systems:

"There is no question that restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services has contributed to the lower cost of health care in Canada."

"We want a Public Option and we want it NOW!"

Would you be willing to pay for it if it turned out to be more expensive than the private option, and when I say you I mean you personally, not the taxpayers. I would suggest you look at the DoD to see what you might be in for.

The people don't want a pubic option they want single payer. There is a difference and a big one. Single payer works all over the world and for less.When you hear stories of foreign citizens coming here for treatment you don't hear the many more US citizens going to third world countries for treatment. Regardless of what Rush and the other conservatives tell you I don't hear people in Europe complaining about their health care nor do I hear them complaining in Canada. When they talk of rationing ever hear of "in network"? That is rationing. Ever hear of we will have to see if your coverage provides it before we authorize the treatment? That is rationing. Just try getting treatment if your insurance carrier won't cover it and you can't pay for it. Ever wonder why you don't hear about all the immigration from England France Ireland etc into the US? Its because it isn't happening. Why because our systems suck and in particular they think our healthcare system is horrible.