|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 21:17:14 [Permalink]
|
I just heard a lady call in to C-SPAN, saying she was "vehemently opposed" to these bills because it would force her to buy something she doesn't want to buy. The C-SPAN anchor who took the call then asked her if she has health insurance. Yes, she said, through her husband's employer.
It's this kind of idiocy that gets us the "55% of Americans do not want health care reform" claims. This woman isn't going to have to buy anything unless she and her husband decide to voluntarily drop their employer-provided insurance, but just in case they do decide that, she wants the freedom to pay out-of-pocket for 100% of her health-care costs. Does she really think that her tax burden or insurance premiums are going to be more than her doctor bills for an emergent situation? Or does she want to bet that the bus that hits her while she's uninsured will kill her outright, instead of just doing enough damage to require $50,000 in care?
Similarly, a coworker of mine seems to think that this is just the top of the slippery slope that leads to future legislation which mandates the end of family-plan health insurance. He thinks that sometime in the near future, Congress will pass a law saying that he and his kids will not be able to be on his wife's employer-provided insurance plan. Every single person in the U.S. will have to be on health insurance individually, he thinks. The idea seems to be that four individual plans will cost more than one family plan, and so the insurance companies will get Congress to pass such legislation, but he doesn't seem to get that that's all the more reason to truly socialize medicine in the U.S., and thus leave health insurance companies out in the cold. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 21:41:38 [Permalink]
|
Just heard another lady opposed to the bills who's right now got insurance through COBRA, and has paid out-of-pocket for major medical costs in the past while uninsured, worrying about what the government might do if she refuses to pay the fines for refusing to get insurance in the future. She thinks the government might take her house.
Come on, people. Can we get some perspective? Or is this entirely about fear? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 03/21/2010 : 22:20:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
This woman isn't going to have to buy anything unless she and her husband decide to voluntarily drop their employer-provided insurance |
Aren't there new rules for private insurance? Could these new rules, in combination with the public-provided health insurance (maybe "subsidized" would be a more accurate term), not kill the financial incentive for insurance companies to offer such plans? Is it not fair to suggest perhaps this could kill that market?
I see 40% excise tax on "Cadillac" private plans, ban on excluding those with pre-existing conditions, all children must be allowed to stay on their parent's plan until age 26. These would seem to cut into their profit margins significantly -- the tax definitely would. Obviously I'm not familiar with the actuarial data, but these rules give them fewer options, which certainly cannot help. Is it not conceivable that these rules could eventually kill this woman's plan? (Or, if her particular plan is locked in, and the new market conditions prompt them to stop offering such plans, the option would not be available to new customers.)
I'm not commenting on whether harming the insurance company's business is good or bad, but rather asking why such an argument would not justify the complaint that this woman's plan, or at least the option for future customers to get such a plan, could be taken away eventually.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/21/2010 22:22:56 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 22:26:30 [Permalink]
|
"In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people."
???????? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 22:55:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Is it not conceivable that these rules could eventually kill this woman's plan?
...I'm not commenting on whether harming the insurance company's business is good or bad, but rather asking why such an argument would not justify the complaint that this woman's plan, or at least the option for future customers to get such a plan, could be taken away eventually. |
But that wasn't her argument. Her argument was that the law forces her to buy something that she does not want, even though she currently has health insurance.
As to whether harming the insurance companies is good or bad, the insurance companies made a deal with Obama for this legislation, and spent something like $150 million of their own money on advertising in favor of the legislation as a part of that deal.
The possible harm to the bottom line due to mandated insuring of those with pre-existing conditions and other rules is mitigated by the laws also mandating another 31 million customers for the insurance companies. Some people are against these laws because it looks like Obama is getting into bed with the industry, as more corporate welfare.
Of course, if the laws cause a massive melt-down of insurance companies, that is, again, all the more reason to bring on fully socialized health care, and eliminate the need for insurance companies altogether.
You also wrote:"In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people."
???????? |
Yeah. That's something like six weeks of premiums for my family plan, so if nobody in my family were sick or in obvious danger of becoming sick, paying the fine would look vastly fiscally more responsible than buying insurance. But, so far as I know, the fine increases over time, following the Massachusetts model of mandated insurance, which seems to be working (from what I've heard). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 23:13:34 [Permalink]
|
Josh Rosenau:Not all see this quite as rosily as I do. My old Kansas friend j.d. thinks that the passage of a bill whose provisions enjoy majority support by a congress elected to enact such a law signifies that "self-governance is over." An anonymous Texas representative thinks that passing a bill which fails to prevent health insurance from covering a certain lifesaving medical procedure for women makes Bart Stupak (and others) "babykiller[s]." The Discovery Institute and former Bush officials join in the outrage that Democratic priorities lean more heavily toward insuring women than that traditional Republican goal of having women them die in alleys. Mitt Romney, who passed a nearly identical bill as Massachusetts' governor, is now urging repeal of the federal bill (but not its state version), insisting: "The American people will not stand still for this bill becoming law … they will throw those guys out." I'm guessing that'll earn him as many votes in 2012 as it did in 2008. Links are in that blog post. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 02:01:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But that wasn't her argument. Her argument was that the law forces her to buy something that she does not want, even though she currently has health insurance. |
If the bill does kill insurance companies, or kills the financial incentive of her type of plan prompting the insurance company to stop offering it, then her plan is nil, and she actually is forced to buy something or pay a fine.
If they have countered this with delivering new customers to insurance companies, it must rank somewhere between pragmatic and corrupt.
| Of course, if the laws cause a massive melt-down of insurance companies, that is, again, all the more reason to bring on fully socialized health care, and eliminate the need for insurance companies altogether. |
Sounds a bit like a Limbaugh-esque "hope Obama fails so we can really fix things" argument.
Yeah. That's something like six weeks of premiums for my family plan, so if nobody in my family were sick or in obvious danger of becoming sick, paying the fine would look vastly fiscally more responsible than buying insurance. But, so far as I know, the fine increases over time, following the Massachusetts model of mandated insurance, which seems to be working (from what I've heard). |
I mean as long as we're okay with government coercing the uninsured among us to buy something with the threat of a fine. Of course, we have lots of other laws that coerce us into doing things as well, so I'm not necessarily discounting the possibility that we are okay with it. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/22/2010 02:06:38 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 03:43:57 [Permalink]
|
It appears to be a step backward , but I guess we'll have to now wait a few years to see how it plays out.
We won't even see Limbaugh leave because of it.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 03:49:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
It appears to be a step backward , but I guess we'll have to now wait a few years to see how it plays out.
We won't even see Limbaugh leave because of it. |
Limpbaugh "had to patiently explain" that he's just a congenital liar and is not to be taken at his word, ever.
"I've fooled you a lot more than twice, so shame on you," he concluded. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2010 : 03:51:01 [Permalink]
|
How I love the sound of conservative anguish in the morning.
It is easy in the face of what happened tonight to sound or become defeatist. You mustn’t.
Freedom needs you now more than ever. The fight has only just begun. But we must be clear what the strategy is and what the battle plan looks like.
Tonight the Democrats voted to put people in jail who have no insurance, raise the costs of health care, destroy the federal government’s bond rating, keep unemployment high, and kill forever the mythological creature known as the pro-life Democrat.
On Friday, Rush Limbaugh said we should remember that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans. That is true. We see it tonight. But we need to be crystal clear on something — the Republican leadership remains accommodationist and fearful of being labeled the ‘party of no.’
Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you again that it is not enough to just throw out the Democrats in favor of Republicans. We must throw out the Democrats and replace them with the right kind of Republicans — conservatives who actually are conservative. And then we must insist that these newly elected Republicans not settle for the status quo in leadership. What is now need not be left in place.
Already we have a few Republicans positioning themselves in grand theatrics to call for full repeal of Obamacare. But these same Republicans in the past have talked about the good parts of the bill and how repeal should be measured. The only way to ensure today’s rhetoric turns into future consistent actions is to surround these Republicans with true conservative warriors.
Friends, if we are going to destroy the Democrats, we must first build up an army of real conservatives in Congress. Half measures, Democrat-lite, and men who compromise in favor of more government must be unacceptable.
Let me be blunt: any Republican who says we will repeal and replace will themselves be replaced. We want repeal period.
|
Cry me a river, bitch!
And then there are the Freepers, who evidently live-blogged it Saturday and Sunday. What a pity I've been banned from their loathsome, little stew. This would be a much better issue to get kicked over than the one that did -- an issue which I've forgotten anyway. Might've had something to do with Clinton.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 05:22:13 [Permalink]
|
Erick Erickson's just crazy. A lunatic. "...the Republican leadership remains accommodationist [sic] and fearful of being labeled the ‘party of no.’"
Bullshit. The GOP has wrapped up its claim to the title, The Party of No. May as well just call it the "NOP" for short.
All, and by that I mean every last one of the 178 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against this historic act. And Erickson calls the Republicans "accomodationist." What kind of delusional ultra-fascist is Erickson? Losing is making these people measurably crazier by the day.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 05:22:19 [Permalink]
|
Good for you! I congratulate the first step in the right direction.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 05:36:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Gorgo
It appears to be a step backward , but I guess we'll have to now wait a few years to see how it plays out.
We won't even see Limbaugh leave because of it. |
Limpbaugh "had to patiently explain" that he's just a congenital liar and is not to be taken at his word, ever.
"I've fooled you a lot more than twice, so shame on you," he concluded.
|
Limbaugh has had to, on more than one occassion, state "that everyone knows that this is just entertainment." Outrageous works only on those predisposed to outrage. I doubt that limbaugh even mentions this again. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 06:10:57 [Permalink]
|
Hedges:
| This bill is not about fiscal responsibility or the common good. The bill is about increasing corporate profit at taxpayer expense. It is the health care industry’s version of the Wall Street bailout. It lavishes hundreds of billions in government subsidies on insurance and drug companies. The some 3,000 health care lobbyists in Washington, whose dirty little hands are all over the bill, have once more betrayed the American people for money. The bill is another example of why change will never come from within the Democratic Party. The party is owned and managed by corporations. The five largest private health insurers and their trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, spent more than $6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. Pfizer, the world’s biggest drug maker, spent more than $9 million during the last quarter of 2008 and the first three months of 2009. The Washington Post reported that up to 30 members of Congress from both parties who hold key committee memberships have major investments in health care companies totaling between $11 million and $27 million. President Barack Obama’s director of health care policy, who will not discuss single payer as an option, has served on the boards of several health care corporations. And as salaries for most Americans have stagnated or declined during the past decade, health insurance profits have risen by 480 percent. |
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 06:13:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
If the bill does kill insurance companies, or kills the financial incentive of her type of plan prompting the insurance company to stop offering it, then her plan is nil, and she actually is forced to buy something or pay a fine. |
Let's assume that she wants health insurance, since she and her husband are already paying for it. For her to face a fine, they would have to decide that they don't want coverage anymore, and I don't buy the argument that people should have a right to go uninsured where their health is concerned.| If they have countered this with delivering new customers to insurance companies, it must rank somewhere between pragmatic and corrupt. |
I imagine that the conversation went something like this:
Obama: We're going to pass a law which prohibits denial of individual health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
Big Insurance: Ummm, that'll cost us a lot of money, forcing us to jack premiums way up.
O: How about we mandate that everyone get coverage?
BI: That will probably work, since healthy people's premiums will balance out the extra cost of covering the sick.
Call it what you will.| Of course, if the laws cause a massive melt-down of insurance companies, that is, again, all the more reason to bring on fully socialized health care, and eliminate the need for insurance companies altogether. |
Sounds a bit like a Limbaugh-esque "hope Obama fails so we can really fix things" argument. |
If the argument is that this law will kill the insurance companies, then I hope the law succeeds.| I mean as long as we're okay with government coercing the uninsured among us to buy something with the threat of a fine. Of course, we have lots of other laws that coerce us into doing things as well, so I'm not necessarily discounting the possibility that we are okay with it. |
Seatbelt laws save lives. Building codes do, too. I don't have much of an issue with protecting people from themselves when the threat is widespread and obvious. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Health Care bill up for grabs
