Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

[blockski]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

OK, so this is a synopsis of what is going to be levied on the insurance companies:

* Lifetime limits on benefits and restrictive annual limits will be prohibited.
* Insurers will be barred from imposing exclusions on children with pre-existing conditions.
* Insurers can no longer refuse to sell or renew policies because of an individual's health status. Health plans can no longer exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers can't charge higher rates because of heath status, gender or other factors.
* Health plans will be prohibited from imposing annual limits on coverage.
* An annual health insurance provider fee will be Imposed across the health insurance sector according to insurers' market share to companies whose total premiums exceed $25 million.

So how does an insurance company remain viable when they aren't allowed to mitigate and distribute risk amongst their pools of insureds? It's not possible. What is next, eliminating exclusions, qualifications and coverage limits for auto insurance? Life insurance? Can someone please explain this to me? And then, after the insurers have been battered by the destruction of their actuarial tables, the government is going to levy an undisclosed tax on them? Maybe I'm not seeing the alternative, but all I'm seeing is hundreds of thousands of lost jobs across the country due to the withdrawing of insurance companies from the health insurance sector.

Auto insurance isn't a key part of society. Neither is life insurance.

Health insurance is. As Krugman notes in the piece I linked to above, health insurance essentially is health care - because we don't know exactly when we will need that care, nor do we know how much it will cost.

And because it's part of our society, it has to meet certain moral and societal requirements. That's why emergency rooms don't check the insurance status before saving the life of someone who's been shot.

You haven't addressed this fundamental disconnect between the societal standards we have for health care and the needs of for-profit insurance.

Again, read the Krugman piece.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Auto insurance isn't a key part of society. Neither is life insurance.

Health insurance is. As Krugman notes in the piece I linked to above, health insurance essentially is health care - because we don't know exactly when we will need that care, nor do we know how much it will cost.

And because it's part of our society, it has to meet certain moral and societal requirements. That's why emergency rooms don't check the insurance status before saving the life of someone who's been shot.

You haven't addressed this fundamental disconnect between the societal standards we have for health care and the needs of for-profit insurance.

Again, read the Krugman piece.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

Please. In NH, you have to have auto insurance (State Law). Why? If you get in a bad accident and injur someone, who remunerates the injured party for lost pay and other expenses not covered by Obamacare? That would be more of a "key part of society" - I can't give you an illness, but I could t-bone you on the road.

Same diff - but it's the State's right - not the fed.

...and Handy still hasn't come up with another historical instance in any Federal law where executed legislation forces a citizen to purchase a product or service from a corporation or the Federal Government.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

That would be more of a "key part of society" - I can't give you an illness, but I could t-bone you on the road.

Don't lie, you gave him herpes last week.

Good Lord, you put that on a tee.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Please. In NH, you have to have auto insurance (State Law). Why? If you get in a bad accident and injur someone, who remunerates the injured party for lost pay and other expenses not covered by Obamacare? That would be more of a "key part of society" - I can't give you an illness, but I could t-bone you on the road.

Same diff - but it's the State's right - not the fed.

...and Handy still hasn't come up with another historical instance in any Federal law where executed legislation forces a citizen to purchase a product or service from a corporation or the Federal Government.

Of course, there's no need for auto insurance if you don't own a car. You don't need homeowner's insurance if you don't own a home (though renter's insurance is a good idea). You can control these things - but that's not what health care is like.

As far as the individual mandate, I believe it's not structured as a requirement to buy, per se, but rather as a tax penalty for not buying insurance. Therefore it falls within the Federal powers of taxation, rather than literally forcing someone to buy insurance. You're right that it's uncharted water, legally speaking - and I'm sure it will be challenged. But that can't happen until the mandate actually goes into effect in 2014.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

OK, so this is a synopsis of what is going to be levied on the insurance companies:

* Lifetime limits on benefits and restrictive annual limits will be prohibited.
* Insurers will be barred from imposing exclusions on children with pre-existing conditions.
* Insurers can no longer refuse to sell or renew policies because of an individual's health status. Health plans can no longer exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers can't charge higher rates because of heath status, gender or other factors.
* Health plans will be prohibited from imposing annual limits on coverage.
* An annual health insurance provider fee will be Imposed across the health insurance sector according to insurers' market share to companies whose total premiums exceed $25 million.

So how does an insurance company remain viable when they aren't allowed to mitigate and distribute risk amongst their pools of insureds? It's not possible. What is next, eliminating exclusions, qualifications and coverage limits for auto insurance? Life insurance? Can someone please explain this to me? And then, after the insurers have been battered by the destruction of their actuarial tables, the government is going to levy an undisclosed tax on them? Maybe I'm not seeing the alternative, but all I'm seeing is hundreds of thousands of lost jobs across the country due to the withdrawing of insurance companies from the health insurance sector.

That's the idea. The left wants the private health insurance companies to go under so the government can completely take over with a single payer health care system.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Please. In NH, you have to have auto insurance (State Law).

No you don't. You can forego buying an automobile and never have to buy insurance.

Like I've said numerous times, if we were willing to let those without insurance die, I'd be all for not mandating insurance on the unwilling. But since we as a society will still treat everyone at an ER, then we can mandate they pay for it.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

No you don't. You can forego buying an automobile and never have to buy insurance.

Like I've said numerous times, if we were willing to let those without insurance die, I'd be all for not mandating insurance on the unwilling. But since we as a society will still treat everyone at an ER, then we can mandate they pay for it.

Agree.

Agree.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

That's the idea. The left wants the private health insurance companies to go under so the government can completely take over with a single payer health care system.

There are many on the left (myself included) who would prefer a single-payer system (which, of course, does not mean the elimination of the private sector in medicine), but you have the causality all wrong.

The reason for doing so is because the dynamics of the market run counter to our societal goals when it comes to health care. What's left is an incredibly inefficient and unsustainable for-profit system that achieves incredibly poor outcomes for how much money is spent.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

...and Handy still hasn't come up with another historical instance in any Federal law where executed legislation forces a citizen to purchase a product or service from a corporation or the Federal Government.

Here's your answer to that, he knows, he's the chairman
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24...se-in-constitution-more-than-200-years-later/

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

why can't we all just ignore these idiots of partisan media?

I call False Equivalence. Two are comedians. The other two are, at best, vamping a nearly murderous seriousness to make bank.

Keith O as an equivalent to Beck I have no problem with -- it's as if somewhere between his days with Dan Patrick and now he decided to fight fire with fire, and all that does is burn things down twice as fast.

(It's not a return. Just a cameo gloat. The equivalent of caring passionately for the basketball team. No denying the passions, but... they'll pass.)

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Like I've said numerous times, if we were willing to let those without insurance die, I'd be all for not mandating insurance on the unwilling. But since we as a society will still treat everyone at an ER, then we can mandate they pay for it.

Given that many states prohibit ERs from turning patients away, especially for emergency care, you'd think they would favor some sort of insurance or payment mechanism that didn't leave Medicaid or similar programs on the hook. Or worse, public hospitals that were forced to write off unpaid bills. It might actually undercut their attacks on the individual mandate ... you know all of those "rights" the AGs have been trotting out the past few days. Indivdual rights, property rights, etc. just getting in the way.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

There are many on the left (myself included) who would prefer a single-payer system (which, of course, does not mean the elimination of the private sector in medicine), but you have the causality all wrong.

The reason for doing so is because the dynamics of the market run counter to our societal goals when it comes to health care. What's left is an incredibly inefficient and unsustainable for-profit system that achieves incredibly poor outcomes for how much money is spent.

The primary reason for going to a government controlled single payer system is for political control over the general population by the Dems. The more people that they can make dependent upon the federal government, the better for the Dems. Any possible improvements to health care that might occur with such a plan are only secondary concerns to those in control in the Dem party. As far as unsustainable programs go, Social Security and Medicare are both going bankrupt. Their unfunded liabilities are so large that they'll likely never be paid off. The government will try to monetize that debt by trying to print more and more money, which will eventually lead to huge increases in inflation. The Fed can only keep the interest rate low for so long; eventually the dam will burst. I don't know when that will happen, but I don't think there is any way to avoid it. Entitlement programs are the gorillas that are driving this country towards some form of bankruptcy/default. And yes the Bush presidency has to accept a little of the blame for that, because they got Medicare Part D passed. The country can't afford another big entitlement program.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The primary reason for going to a government controlled single payer system is for political control over the general population by the Dems.

No, the primary reason for going to a single payer system is that it is inherently the best way to diversify the risk of an insurance pool. The more people in a given insurance pool, the more risk of a given negative outcome is spread. The largest pool is one where everyone is a member. Taken together, then, a pool with everyone in it has risk diversified the most.

The reason for government control of single payer is that a profit-motive and life/death decisions sometimes involve mutually exclusive outcomes. Consequently, where society's goal is to keep the most people alive no matter the cost, the profit motive should be removed.

That doesn't mean gov't single payer is perfect. It simply means it better meets societal goals than the market in the given instance.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

As far as I know the Hyde Amendment and Roe vs. Wade are the law of the land. Where's the expansion?

Even the liberal mouthpiece New York Times concedes that under the health care plan "federal dollars are being spent in ways that make it much easier to obtain abortion-covering insurance" and "the health care bill, as passed, effectively tilts public policy in a more pro-choice direction." Not to mention that "the executive order that Stupak accepted as cover for his pivotal health care vote is probably meaningless."

You can dodge some of the facts some of the time but you can't dodge all the facts all of the time.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/sympathy-for-bart-stupak/

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Even the liberal mouthpiece New York Times concedes that under the health care plan "federal dollars are being spent in ways that make it much easier to obtain abortion-covering insurance" and "the health care bill, as passed, effectively tilts public policy in a more pro-choice direction." Not to mention that "the executive order that Stupak accepted as cover for his pivotal health care vote is probably meaningless."

You can dodge some of the facts some of the time but you can't dodge all the facts all of the time.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/sympathy-for-bart-stupak/

Facts from an opinion piece?

Again. The law of the land is as I stated it. You haven't proven otherwise.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Facts from an opinion piece?

Again. The law of the land is as I stated it. You haven't proven otherwise.

So you're saying the New York Times has become a shill for anti-abortion advocates? Even they can't ignore something so obvious, but apparently you can.

Even Stupak himself said:
"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage" before he made his bizarre position flip.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

...and Handy still hasn't come up with another historical instance in any Federal law where executed legislation forces a citizen to purchase a product or service from a corporation or the Federal Government.

No I havent...congrats want a cookie. To be honest I dont even remember what the point was nor do I care so please dont rehash it. Just chalk it up as a victory for you and let it go. You are the winner of the internet argument...that places you somewhere right around making the Final Four in the newest NCAA postseason tourny.

I am going to back to my watching you all blow your brains out because you think we all just became Socialists.

Oh and since he is blocked and I have seen he has posted but obviously havent read it...Welcome to Cuba 2.0 solovsfett...feel free to leave if you dont like it

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

As far as the individual mandate, I believe it's not structured as a requirement to buy, per se, but rather as a tax penalty for not buying insurance. Therefore it falls within the Federal powers of taxation, rather than literally forcing someone to buy insurance. You're right that it's uncharted water, legally speaking - and I'm sure it will be challenged. But that can't happen until the mandate actually goes into effect in 2014.

It has to be collected as a tax. This follows the precedent of social security.

How could the federal government legally force employers and employees to "contribute" to an "insurance" program-particularly a program that was concieved in deceit and punishes their children and grandchildren? The programs (social security) consitutionality was challenged and in 1937 the SC ruled...that "the proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. Therefore, while FDR was insisting to the public that SS was an insurance program based on segregated funds and earned benefits, his lawyers were in court insisiting that it was no such thing- and the SC played along and betrayed the consitution.

This is social security;
In 1940, about 220,000 people received a SS check every month.
By 2004, over 47,000,000 were collecting SS checks monthly.

Then LBJ signed Medicare/Medicaid;
In 1965 there were 19,000,000 enrolled in Medicare, 4,000,000 in Medicaid
by 2006 there was 43,000,000 enrolled in Medicare, 51,000,000 in Medicaid

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

No you don't. You can forego buying an automobile and never have to buy insurance.

Like I've said numerous times, if we were willing to let those without insurance die, I'd be all for not mandating insurance on the unwilling. But since we as a society will still treat everyone at an ER, then we can mandate they pay for it.

How dare you bring logic and sense to this thread...you need more exclamation points and inflammatory language! Socialist is being overdone so it would be nice if you perhaps busted out Marxist and referenced Uncle Karl. Thanks

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

I call False Equivalence. Two are comedians. The other two are, at best, vamping a nearly murderous seriousness to make bank.

Keith O as an equivalent to Beck I have no problem with -- it's as if somewhere between his days with Dan Patrick and now he decided to fight fire with fire, and all that does is burn things down twice as fast.

They're all just entertainers. Some more popular (and worthwhile!) than others but you'll admit the "seriousness" is an act just the same as comedy. None should be taken at face value.

(It's not a return. Just a cameo gloat. The equivalent of caring passionately for the basketball team. No denying the passions, but... they'll pass.)

Yeah, I got sucked back in too. It's OK to admit it.