The health insurance industry threatens to boost policy rates across the board if Congress approves legislation to reform it and reduce costs, claiming the refors will make increases necessary.
The most reasonable response is to take the industry’s threat seriously and include in the bill a very strong, very accessible, public option.
I would love to know why the yokels believe other people should pay for their health insurance but not their fire insurance, bread, auto insurance, life insurance, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies, water and false teeth.
Perhaps we are getting close to the time when the yokels will indeed demand such things. If we get enough yokels we could vote ourselves a workers’ paradise modeled on the Soviet economy.
Does the insurance industry smell a doublecross by Obama? Imagine that.
Posted by: Jeff | October 12, 2009, 8:49 pm 8:49 pm
Jeff:Does the insurance industry smell a doublecross by Obama? Imagine that.
===========
I know, right?
Surely the WH didn’t think they enjoyed an interested party’s *unconditional* support.
We can of course be assured that the analyses of the White House and congressional staff are entirely objective and not at all self-serving. Neither would ever to pull a fast one for short-term political gain.
Neither would they ever propose anything that was economically unsound. Sure, there may a few score trillion dollars of unfunded liability facing Medicare and Social Security, but the kids and grandkids can pick up the tab somehow, right?
Bear in mind that their most recent stroke of genius, after the stimulus, was Cash for Clunkers.
This administration has failed miserably at the vital work of reinventing our health care system. They put political calendars first, not the nation’s highest good, and this latest Baucus Ghoulash is as foul for the country as all the other bills they tried to ram through.
We deserve better: a real review and reflection of the options; a finished plan that preserves the great good that is our system at the same time that it amplifies access and availability to that good; and a president who does not viciously demean fellow Americans — like doctors, job-creating businesses, and those who disagree — how disgracefully he has behaved in all this.
Hundreds of thousands of people marched to try and open up real dialog. Now it seems the insurance industry, too, sees this whole beast has been handled in bad faith, and their only recourse is to play the game the way this leadership does: mean. Good for them!
I’m calling on my reps to abort this shameful process, start all over and do it right. And don’t bother asking me to vote Democratic ever again.
Posted by: Carol | October 12, 2009, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm
“I would love to know why the yokels believe other people should pay for their health insurance but not their fire insurance, bread, auto insurance, life insurance, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies, water and false teeth.”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 8:46:09 PM
And the rightwing zealots don’t seem to understand that unless we let people literally die of a broken arm if they’re poor, or getting hit by a car if they’re young and too foolish to care insurance, and then let their corpse rot on the street like a third world country (or are you kind enough to pay for those yokel’s burials), we pay for the health care of the poor.
“This administration has failed miserably at the vital work of reinventing our health care system. They put political calendars first, not the nation’s highest good, and this latest Baucus Ghoulash is as foul for the country as all the other bills they tried to ram through.”
Carol | Oct 12, 2009 9:17:26 PM
Oh please. Clinton ‘reinvented’ healthcare from the ground up and did it right – with no concern for political process. How did that work out again? Congress is Constitutionally tasked to make the laws. If you did not expect Obama to take this path, then you were woefully ignorant of his history (Constitutional law professor and proven wonk in the IL senate).
Carol -
You wrote eloquently of what so many of us think.
Of course, the obama Supporters will, once again, come out on these blogs to defend what cannot be defended.
Sadly for them, the only people they are convincing are other obama Supporters.
The rest of us, not so much.
I would love to know why the yokels believe other people should pay for their health insurance ….
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 8:46:09 PM
And I would love to know why the true yokels keep bringing up this canard when it has absolutely nothing to do with health care reform or the current debate, except in their stuck-on-repeat imaginations. We already have Medicaid, yes? Some of the big issues that need to be addressed are medical inflation, ever-rising premium costs,affordability for those who own small businesses or are self-employed or who work part-time or for a small employer who can’t afford group coverage for everybody, particularly those with pre-existing conditions, a growing number of uninsureds, pre-existing conditions, recission and so on. You know this.
You also know that health care isn’t a commodity that can be marketed like bread, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies and so on. Most of us can’t/don’t/won’t know when or whether we’ll need health care or what type of care we’ll require— but when we do, the care can be extremely expensive, yes? Not many people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket which means that health care can’t be sold and paid for like bread or vitamins or gardening supplies. We contract with private insurers, and ultimately, someone other than the patient decides what to buy. The whole thing about consumer choice and rationaing and blah, blah, blah is such a joke. Consumer choice is already limited and rationing already occurs. And here’s the thing about insurance companies, which you also know — they’re not patient centered. In fact, their financially incented to deny coverage and claims when we most need it. Paying for an insured’s health care is a loss from an insurance company’s perspective.
And then there’s the complexity issue. Comparison shopping can be difficult for some. Which is why a national insurance exchange that allows for easy comparison shopping is such a great idea.
I agree with mahenry, “The most reasonable response is to take the industry’s threat seriously and include in the bill a very strong, very accessible, public option.”
We need health insurance reform now.
Here’s a quote from John Gruber, an MIT health economist, who has crunched some numbers in response to the insurance lobby’s “report”: “Conclusion: The non-partisan analysis based on information from the CBO shows clearly that for those facing purchase in the non-group market, the SFC bill will deliver savings ranging from several hundred dollars for the youngest consumers to over $8500 for families. This is in addition to all the other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers – in particular the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill.”
As Ezra Klein points out, Gruber’s analysis is free from the same glaring deficiencies that were in the AHIP “report.” To find out more, check out Klein’s blog. There’s a link there and a graph and so on.
“Sadly for them, the only people they are convincing are other obama Supporters.”
ceeLeelee | Oct 12, 2009 9:38:06 PM
And once all the other “Obama Supporters” – a notoriously broad ideological bunch ranging from Blue Dogs to Dennis Kucinich – are convinced, we will probably have a pretty centrist bill. And once supported by a clear majority of Americans. Not sure what your problem with that is.
I love how if you don’t health insurance and refuse to buy what you don’t want….Obama is going to tax you or throw you in jail. Can everyone say FASCIST?
“(Constitutional law professor and proven wonk in the IL senate).
Nope, not a professor but a lecturer.
Nope, “Present” x 150 is not the work of anything but a proven windsock with no ideological basis.
Nice try though, skippy.
Just so everyone understands what’s coming:
“The Massachusetts adventure in health-care reform will take an entirely predictable turn in the near future, say providers within the network. The state panel intends to dictate a narrower network of providers for some insurance plans, which providers insist will result in a reduction of services to patients in hospitals and clinics. Massachusetts wants its citizens to choose second-tier hospitals and clinics to save costs, and plans to eliminate choice as a means to that end.”
The laws of economics are simply not subject to repeal.
Price Waterhouse Coopers…just a fly-by-night peddler of tax shelters!
Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals, page 128: “Rule 5: ridicule is the most important weapon.”
Obama has surrounded himself with radicals like William Ayers his whole life.
In fact, Ayers was alloed to write Dreams of My Father.
Present” x 150 is not the work of anything but a proven windsock with no ideological basis.
Posted by: 2Brixshy | Oct 12, 2009 10:1
Not in Illinois, but I’m sure you’ve already read the fact checks on that. Funny thing is you STILL had to inflate the number from 129 out of over 4,000 votes to 150 (shakes head.)What is it with you all and your need to inflate numbers? LOL.
jhw was right: (Constitutional law professor and proven wonk in the IL senate).
“We already have Medicaid, yes?”
Yes, we have it for the truly needy, which is a far cry from subsidizing the insurance premiums of people at three or four times the povert level. In any event it is bankrupting the states, upon whom the congress has imposed an endless succession of unfunded mandates.
Are you unable to understand and acknowledge the fiscal catastrophe of Medicare? Is your plan for addressing the $33 Trillion unfunded liability simply to add more people to the rolls?
“Some of the big issues that need to be addressed are medical inflation, ever-rising premium costs,affordability for those who own small businesses or are self-employed or who work part-time or for a small employer who can’t afford group coverage for everybody,”
And the Baucus bill addresses these concerns? Why not simply allow interstate competition, as we have with all other forms of insurance?
(If you think Baucus will lower your premiums, you should go back to school. If it passes, your education will begin in 2013.)
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
We won’t even go into the “Present” vote status. It is well known.
AS for the “proven” record of his work in the Senate, wellll, I don’t know about that since he can’t seem to “find” his senatorial records. Maybe what you meant is that he has a proven record of taking credit for other peoples’work.
You will excuse us if we don’t take your word for it, won’t you?
“Nope, not a professor but a lecturer.”
2Brixshy | Oct 12, 2009 10:10:18 PM
UC Law School statement: “The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.”
The rank of professor is given by accredited institutions, Obama served as a professor, he was even offered tenure at one point and turned it down. Why is it right wingers are always so easily proven to be wrong? I’m not sure if it is the result of a culture that glorifies honest ignorance or straight out lying, but it is why their credibility is absolutely shot.
“The Massachusetts adventure in health-care reform …
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:14:02 PM
Let’s look at that realistically, shall we, cuz we can all cherry pick…
From the Boston Globe: “Controlling Massachusetts’ soaring medical costs, many health care leaders believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want…There is little doubt that the state’s current system of broad choice and sometimes uncoordinated care has helped push Massachusetts health care costs above the national average. It can lead to unnecessary duplication of medical tests, when patients see multiple providers, each often unaware of what the others have done. And thousands of residents get knee replacement surgery, have babies at teaching hospitals, or other care, when often a less-expensive hospital would be more economical and provide good-quality care.”
Makes sense to me, but here’s the money quote: “The Massachusetts proposal would involve a more ambitious restructuring of health care than any of the cost-cutting ideas being discussed in Washington.”
“Are there actually sentient beings who believe that we face a choice between allowing people to die of broken arms and the Baucus plan?”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:16:00 PM
You keep pushing the lie that health care reform suddenly means ‘yokels’ get free (paid for by those responsible enough to carry insurance) health care, implying they don’t get it now. Do you honestly believe that, or are you just lying?
The Baucus bill isn’t perfect, and my giving a few hundred dollars to the local food bank won’t eliminate world hunger. That doesn’t mean either is not worth doing.
…Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals, page 128: “Rule 5: ridicule is the most important weapon.”
Today, October 12, 2009, 15 minutes ago | Colonel Rebel
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, finally I find the source of Rush Limbaugh’s (the Republican Party Leader) mode of operation.
Thanks…didn’t know that!
Why not simply allow interstate competition, as we have with all other forms of insurance?
***
I’m all for interstate competition if it’s not used a trojan horse for deregulation– so say via a federally regulated national insurance exchange, especially if you throw in a fresh competitor in the form of a public option! But even without the public option I’d be all in if we replaced state regulation with another option, which would be federal regulation.
“You also know that health care isn’t a commodity that can be marketed like bread, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies and so on. Most of us can’t/don’t/won’t know when or whether we’ll need health care or what type of care we’ll require— but when we do, the care can be extremely expensive, yes?”
Health care may not be a commodity–whatever that may mean–but health care insurance surely is, ever bit as much as life insurance, auto insurance, fire insurance and vegetables are.
The fact that we do not know when we are going to need health care is precisely the reason we insure ourselves against the financial risks it may pose. (I take it you feel that if my house catches fire I should be able to get on my cell phone and instantly order up an insurance policy, right? No point in buying insurance until we need it…)
Your concern for, and patronizing attitude toward, those for whom comparison shopping is just too “complex” is hardly an excuse for disrupting the arrangements that 250 million responsible Americans find to their liking. In any case almost all Americans decide more complex issues frequently in their lives–no need to be so condescending.
“And the Baucus bill addresses these concerns? Why not simply allow interstate competition, as we have with all other forms of insurance?”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:31:22 PM
Because every reputable analysis indicates that won’t bring down costs significantly. Which should be obvious – California has the population of the 20 smallest states combined, more than many countries yet it isn’t a big enough market?!?!? Do you assume everyone is an idiot and can’t understand that obvious illustration that market size is not the problem? And do you even know what “interstate competition” means? Are you saying Blue Cross, Wellpoint, Aetna, United Healthgroup are NOT interstate corporations? Beyond the bumpersticker, what do you mean by ‘allow interstate competition’ – I mean Wellpoint is in 14 states, is that not interstate? Are you just advocating the Feds stripping states of their state power to regulate business within their borders?
March 30, 2008
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
WASHINGTON — The University of Chicago released a statement Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama “served as a professor” in the law school — but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.
“He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school.”
*************************************
He has already been “elected” so no need to push the manure any further. Most of us already know his resume was padded.
Lol. :D
“And here’s the thing about insurance companies, which you also know — they’re not patient centered. In fact, their financially incented to deny coverage and claims when we most need it.”
So is the government. That is why the claims denial rate for Medicare is nearly double that for private insurers. You don’t have an enforceable contract against the government. You do against an insurer, and they know it.
“Health care may not be a commodity–whatever that may mean–but health care insurance surely is,”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:45:07 PM
“Commodity, noun, an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.”
HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A COMMODITY. It is impossible to have a debate if you do not even accept the English language.
Some people will literally die without health care. The need for a million dollars of health care to avoid death is entirely unpredictable – ask Lance Armstrong. Comparing it to vegetables and calling it a commodity… I’m not sure if you’re joking or what. It’s like you’re earnestly recommending new muffler bearings and a top of head light fluid to fix up an old car.
… Why is it right wingers are always so easily proven to be wrong? I’m not sure if it is the result of a culture that glorifies honest ignorance or straight out lying, but it is why their credibility is absolutely shot.
Today, October 12, 2009, 6 minutes ago | jhw539
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Come on…everybody already knows…”straight out lying”.
And the interesting thing is that they do it even though they know they are either writing down the words, or being video and audio taped…all of which can (and does) later stand as irrefutable evidence that they lied!
And, when they get caught, they simply move on to the next topic ‘du jour’ to see if it will ‘stick’.
I’m thinking that they need to go back to basics…like say cooking spaghetti till it sticks to the wall.
“So is the government. That is why the claims denial rate for Medicare is nearly double that for private insurers.”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:51:00 PM
Sure thing. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that private insurers require pre-approval PRIOR to a claim, and pre-approval denials are conveniently omitted from their statistics while Medicare does not have a pre-approval board to kill claims. Provide a definition of denial from a reputable source or it’s pretty safe to assume that you’re just another right winger lying.
He has already been “elected” so no need to push the manure …
Posted by: ceeLeelee | Oct 12, 2009 10:50:52 PM
Speaking of pushers of manure, lol–
Yes, he’s already been elected so there’s no reason to keep lying in hopes to get another candidate in office. Sheesh. You all like bringing up old debunked canards. An oldie but goodie, but easy to respond to with the source that would know. Turns out the University of Chicago disagrees with you, as you should have known–
“UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Provide a definition of denial from a reputable source or it’s pretty safe to assume that you’re just another right winger lying.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 12, 2009 10:56:24 PM
I think a few rightwingers have been quoting a report that was cited on the big government website about denial of claim lines, in Medicare’s case, typically for incomplete information, and before appeal and all of that. The so-called conclusions of the HSA consultant who brought the report to big governments attention have been unpacked a bit. It’s a rightwinger meme on conservative and teapartier type blogs. I can’t recall all the problems with the claim, but there are many– number one being that the report itself doesn’t conclude the same thing the consultant does because that’s not what it was designed to measure in any conclusive way. It was designed as a consulting tool to help medical offices get claims paid efficiently, I believe. It’s been a few days since I looked at it. I’ll look it up again tomorrow cuz Fascist is the third rightwinger I’ve seen tried to slip it in a post as an actual fact.
In any case almost all Americans decide more complex issues frequently in their lives–no need to be so condescending.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:45:07 PM
I’m not being condescending. In fact on health care forums one thing most people regardless of party seem to agree on is that they’d love to be able to plug in their information and pull up easily accessible comparisons by cost and coverage of the policies that would best suit them.
Good night, Fascist and others. I didn’t get to all your points but we both know that much of this is the same old, same old and I gotta roll. We’ll see what happens tomorrow :>)
“In fact on health care forums one thing most people regardless of party seem to agree on is that they’d love to be able to plug in their information and pull up easily accessible comparisons by cost and coverage of the policies that would best suit them.”
You may be entirely assured that were it not for the congressional ban on interstate sales of health insurance, everyone could do precisely that. Even under the current system anyone who can use a computer can price a whole array of options–but you’re limited to the companies that sell in your state. In California, that’s a six-firm oligopoly instead of an aggressively competitive market with hundreds of providers.
It takes an enormous amount of hubris for an industry, who in large part created the health care crisis by over-charging its customers, to-in the face of imminent reform- threaten even more price increases. I’m only an old, bald, independent, western yokel, but this entire debate became grossly overly complicated. Put simply-a bunch of folks and corporations are charging too much. Now the corporate bullies threaten us with even more price increases if we tip over their game.
Summary of the Price-Waterhouse conclusions:
In other words, the average family will be paying $4,000 more per year for health insurance premiums under the Baucus bill than if nothing were done. Rather than bring costs under control, as any reform worth its salt would have to do (and as reforms that would introduce real private sector competition into the insurance sector would do) the bill would actually increase the rate at which those costs are growing.
There can be an honest dispute about the precise amount of the increases, but not about the fact that they will occur. It is not possible for it to be otherwise.
did obama get his phd? i’m wondering because it truly surprises me that he would be offered a tenured professorship if he had not. that’s not the way major research universities operate…
To my knowledge, he does not have a phd. A lot of revisionist history has taken place concerning Obama — to include the professor vs. senior lecturer debate.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 13, 2009, 12:10 am 12:10 am
it’s time to put the screws to the insurance industry for blackmailing the american people, same for the oil speculators, and the greedy pharm and banking corporations…
bending over backward for corporations while they bankrupt the people is utter nonsense. you could have cross state competition and it would still be meaningless, as you would have to believe that the health insurance companies would somehow ‘get religion’ after all these years of bleeding the citizens.
time for universal healthcare with a public option
Posted by: Espirito Sancti | October 13, 2009, 12:10 am 12:10 am
Gallop has Obama at 56% approval
McClatchy has Obama at 56% approval
Quinnipiac has Obama at 50% approval
Pew has Obama at 52% approval
why does that fascist hyena guy always lie about what’s happening by only posting the Rasmussen results ?
Posted by: ? | October 13, 2009, 12:17 am 12:17 am
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.
Today, October 12, 2009, 1 minute ago | Fascist Hyena
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I plotted the entire set of Rasmussen ‘Approval Index rating’ data.
If it were a typical stock a chartist would say that it has almost completed a ‘picture perfect’ ‘Inverted Head and Shoulders’ pattern.
This would mean that it has seen its bottom (-14 on Aug 24) and is in a bullish phase.
It has bounced off of ‘resistance’ at -3 on Sep 14. If it breaks this resistance (and if behaves like a stock), it will have completed the pattern, and would likely go to +10 (the previous high) in the next 3 months. It would then go towards +28 (last seen on Jan 21) over the next several months afterwards.
I’ve never thought about these polls as behaving like stocks.
I guess the intense false negativity conveyed by the right lately is the financial equivalent of ‘Shorting’ the stock.
We’ll see if there is a ‘Short Covering’ rally in the offing.
I guess we are going see how representative of a stock Barack’s ‘Approval Index rating’ is.
Posted by: ErnestNM | October 13, 2009, 12:19 am 12:19 am
Today’s inspirational government-run health care story:
A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease had returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a controversial ‘death pathway’.
Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year- old Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water and medication except painkillers.
He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that his cancer had not come back and he was in fact suffering from pneumonia brought on by a chest infection.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 13, 2009, 1:02 am 1:02 am
I strongly believe that Zoolander and Congress will get us a great health care – no make that health insurance program. I think now that Derek has his new Blue Steel look working for him with the Nobel committee, everything is going to work out great.
All of those unemployed people are just astro-turf as Pelosi would say.
Posted by: welldirected | October 13, 2009, 1:26 am 1:26 am
We’ll see soon enough, but based on my skimming of the news this morning, it looks like the AHIP report ticked off some of the very people the insurance lobby hoped to influence. Indeed, in light of the AHIP stunt, many “in the know” are saying that the chances that some kind of public option will make it into the final bill have now increased (which is what I was hoping.) Keep pushing, progressives, Dems, liberals and reform-minded folks!! The people’s desire for insurance reform and an affordable, competitive and robust public option can and should prevail (fingers crossed.)
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
We’ll see soon enough, but based on my skimming of the news this morning, it looks like the AHIP report ticked off some of the very people the insurance lobby hoped to influence. Indeed, in light of the AHIP stunt, many “in the know” are saying that the chances that some kind of public option will make it into the final bill have now increased (which is what I was hoping.) Keep pushing, progressives, Dems, liberals and reform-minded folks!! The people’s desire for insurance reform and an affordable, competitive and robust public option can and should prevail (fingers crossed.)
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
It all comes down to the health and by extension, the financial well-being of our citizens, our country’s economic health vs. the profits of the health insurance industry.
Without competition, the health insurance industry has grown bloated, raised its profits and ceo salaries too high and routinely cancels policies or denies coverage for its sickest patients. This bad behavior hasn’t stopped but grown worse.
At some point we must recognize that the upward spiraling premium cost is now affecting our economy. Just in our family, every year our raises are just about taken up by the higher price for our policy. This means we have little extra to buy the goods that fuel the economy. Multiply that by millions of families to see the drain on our economy.
We need a public option to keep our premiums down and give those unable to afford private insurance some means of buying coverage. Our fellow citizens dying because they lacked insurance has to stop.
Posted by: Lydia | October 13, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
Maybe I’m being too simplistic here, but why hasn’t the MSM, Congress, the President, or anyone else for that matter, approached the subject of a growing population and research/development in the medical industry as reasons for insurance cost increases as well.
Let’s face facts. People are living longer than ever before. Some of it is taking responsibility for their own health, living well, and living long. But for many, so many barriers have been broken in research, development and administration of new equipment and medications that a longer life span is within reach. And, as the population in our country grows and grows, more treatments, more specialists, more equipment, etc. will be needed. The cost of an expanded population’s health care, along with development of new technologies for that care is overwhelming. But, instead of discussing those simple points, it’s easier for the White House to point fingers at the insurance companies and pin the high costs directly on them. I’m not saying they don’t have their faults, but as health care costs go up, their insurance rates must go up to match it. You could almost compare it with automobiles. As new technologies and safety equipment make for better cars and trucks, that research, development and implementation must be paid for. How? Look at the sticker price. Nobody WANTS to pay more for a better, safer, more fuel efficient car, but if you want it, you’ll pay for it. The same with health care. Nobody WANTS to pay more, but if you want the best, cutting edge, technological advancements, you’ll have to pay for it.
The White House can claim savings all they want, but the bottom line is this-with new lives coming in and an elderly population living longer, healthier lives, more and more and more people will need healthcare. If they can convince me that adding more people to an already stressed out system will actually SAVE money, I’ll eat my humble pie.
Posted by: Shoe | October 13, 2009, 11:44 am 11:44 am
Shoe, great comment! I agree with all that you said. However, I would add one important item. Some of those who are living longer are not healthy at all. Some require routine treatments (i.e., regular blood transfusions) in order to continue to live. Others require expensive medications just to survive–yet with these medications may have a life expectancy of another 20 years.
Posted by: James Danley | October 13, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
Maybe I’m being too simplistic here…
Posted by: Shoe | Oct 13, 2009 11:44:18 AM
Yes, because you’re not looking at the other side of the same point, and that is overly simplistic. To touch on that just a bit as I’m pressed for time, if you want to use the car analogy, let’s go there. So, if you want to get a top-of-the-line car it will cost more, but you would think you’d be able to buy other safe and efficient options that are affordable, and competitive with foreign options, and that the industry would innovate and evolve to meet the market’s needs and demands. Some of us (a lot of us) just want another choice that better meets our needs, and that choice looks a lot like what is available in other countries. It’s the status quo folks whose needs are met, at least for now, that won’t allow us to innovate to meet the needs of more people and actually, the future of business and work as that’s trending in a direction where the tie between health insurance coverage and employment makes less and less sense. I see the clinging to the status quo and the refusal to innovate and allow additional affordable options that are competitive with what is available in every other first world nation as extremely self-centered and short-sighted, but bygones, I’m sure there’s an ideological excuse for all that and some vast conspiracy theory about communism and what not (eyeroll)
Insurance companies are financially incented not to cover sick persons and to find a way not to pay out on claims once a person becomes ill. And they are ruthless when it comes to lobbying against reform– hence the pointed fingers. I worked for insurance and managed care companies for 16 years. Read Wendell Potter’s interviews. He’s spot on.
It all comes down to the health and by extension, the financial well-being of our citizens, our country’s economic health vs. the profits of the health insurance industry.
***
Exactly. Nice post. What’s interesting is that now even Price Waterhouse is backing away from AHIP and putting out statements that undermine their client.
“It all comes down to the health and by extension, the financial well-being of our citizens, our country’s economic health vs. the profits of the health insurance industry.”
Really? What are the combined annual profits of the health insurance companies? And how does it compare to the 50 billion a year in Medicare waste/abuse/fraud that we hear so much about?
What are the combined annual profits of the health insurance companies? And how does it compare to the 50 billion a year in Medicare waste/abuse/fraud that we hear so much about?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Oct 13, 2009 1:34:16 PM
Oh, okay, she shouldn’t have just pointed out profits– she should’ve mentioned the waste/inefficiencies/advertising and marketing dollars/lobbying dollars/ large number of executives with million dollar salaries/ the bonuses/the private jets/the extravagant expense accounts and then of course, the profits of insurance companies. They throw pretty darned good parties, too, on the company dime.
Alyson, once again, you are completely off the topic. My point is that you cannot simply point fingers at insurance companies and blame them for high health care costs. As technology and medicines evolve, and people are receiving care (insurance or not) and being able to live longer, of course there is going to be a cost.
As far as the statement comparing this to buying a car, the point, once again, is that technology and development are moving forward, therefore, the prices move with it. Of course you have a choice of vehicles, but the point remains that prices increase as the product improves. Haven’t you noticed that if you buy a newer, better car or truck, your insurance goes up? So, as health care moves forward, health insurance must go along with that. It isn’t the insurance industry’s problem that even though the equipment and processes are in place to make people healthier, the majority STILL do not take the personal responsibility to take care of themselves.
The liberal party seems to think that they have the answers to any question about health care. But the one they still have YET to answer is HOW are “costs” going to be kept down when we’re going to add millions to the plan, research and development processes still need to be paid for, and we have a generation of kids who don’t even know how to go outside and play anymore? Does that add up to savings? Someone PLEASE explain that one.
While we’re on the subject of health care, I noticed that the liberals are very excited about the “die quickly” mantra revealed a couple of weeks ago. Let’s just remind everyone that the same party who is touting this kind of ignorance is the party who also doesn’t mind a baby, after being aborted but yet living, be shuffled off to a different room at the hospital and left to die. I wonder if the Democrats want that “mistake” to “die quickly”? Answer that one for me as well, Alyson. The “morals” of your liberal party are enough for anyone to need health care…they indeed make me sick.
You could almost compare it with automobiles.
Posted by: Shoe
except of course.. that with the japanese cars, ‘they’ eventually made better, more reliable fuel efficient leading technology cars for less than the american counterparts, ‘they’ were dismissed by the car monopolies and the US citizens because we were all used to ‘buying american’… until.. like the insurance company dilemma today, the citizens realized they didn’t have to ‘buy american’, and ‘take it or leave it’ with poor product and worse service…. because now they had a real choice.
That’s where we are today….. we are used to dealing with one option for health insurance, different companies, but basically one option…. time for some real competition regardless of the source…
The “morals” of your liberal party are enough for anyone to need health care…they indeed make me sick.
Posted by: Shoe | Oct 13, 2009 1:54:18 PM
Ah well. Which liberal party is that? We could go on and on about all that. The morals of the GOP are why I’m more anti-GOP than anything else, including Democrat. Perhaps you missed that post. My party is “anti-GOP.” And yes, I’m pro-progressive and I like Obama way more than I’ve liked other politicians. I’ve voted for Dems and independents, including a Libertarian– once a rather liberal Republican for a local office after she assured me she hadn’t voted for Bush. When I have more time I can list why I think the GOP party platform and record is immoral. The list would take a couple hours to type up but I’m sure you know the short list. Unlike ahem, others, I’m not all into the whole “wow, look at me, I’m very self-righteous” thang.
As for the rest of your comment, I didn’t miss your point and I wasn’t off topic. You just don’t get it. LOL. Health insurance goes up with cost, yes, and there are many reasons costs are rising and some of them are good. Many are not. But that doesn’t mean the private and public health care and payor sectors can’t innovate to do something about rising costs– will costs still rise with technological advances? Yes. Do they have to rise more than salaries and the medical costs in other countries in a proportion unequal to the benefits we derive from advances? No. But some are unwilling to let go of the status quo and look at the problem and ways to deal with it beyond the tired talking points (tort reform without equal shrift given to patient safety, and so on.) They talk up innovation while being scared to death of innovating. It’s hilarious. And stupid. And short sighted. And self-centered. And stubborn. Part of the reason they don’t get it– or refuse to take an honest look at it– is that the health insurance sector is very good at both buying influence in D.C. Very. good.
I suggest you read some of Wendell Potter’s interviews to get at why the insurance industry gets fingers pointed at it.
Oh, and btw, yes, I did like Grayson’s floor comments. They made me chuckle. They were purposely over the top though less over the top than the ridiculous comments made by many Republicans. It’s hilarious to see people who went on about death panels and communists get hypocritically outraged, without enough self awareness to get the joke or irony. The GOP likes to kick problems down the road. That’s no big secret. Did you hear some of the GOP reps comments to town hall goers with health issues? Enlightening. Grayson hit a nerve because he perfectly captured what they said to their constituents. Don’t get sick. If you do, die quickly (and, oh yeah, I’ll pray for you. Maybe others can, too.) That’s what’s really sickening. Sheesh.
How much are we talking?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Oct 13, 2009 2:04:34 PM
Look it up, and let me know what you find in the aggregate. It could be enlightening for you.
except of course.. that with the japanese cars, ‘they’ eventually made better, more reliable fuel efficient leading technology cars for less than the american counterparts, ‘they’ were dismissed by the car monopolies and the US citizens because we were all used to ‘buying american’… until.. like the insurance company dilemma today, the citizens realized they didn’t have to ‘buy american’, and ‘take it or leave it’ with poor product and worse service…. because now they had a real choice.
That’s where we are today….. we are used to dealing with one option for health insurance, different companies, but basically one option…. time for some real competition regardless of the source…
Posted by: Oh Yeah | Oct 13, 2009 2:17:35 PM
***
Right on! You’re more articulate and lucid than I, but yes!!!
Okay, for the last time…for those of you who have not read my previous posts (under “Shoe”) please read. For those who have and STILL don’t get the point, here we go again…
I am NOT talking about insurance choices. I am talking about COST. The Obama administration is trying to convince the American public that they can enact a policy of insurance coverage for MILLIONS of uninsured, AND do it without adding to the deficit. BULL. In the simplest of terms, cost goes up as time goes on. You cannot control that and still expect pharmaceutical and equipment advancements. You cannot expect to get the top notch healthcare at the same price. To say that they are going to add on a tremendous number of people, continue to research and develop in the medical field, train and retrain doctors, nurses, staff, etc. and do it without increasing the deficit?? In the words of Mr. Wilson “YOU LIE”.
Going back to the “car routine” I’ve been using, here’s something that cannot be argued. As advancements in the automotive industry have come about, prices have gone up. You can say what you want about “choices” but the fact STILL remains that a Ford Taurus now costs MUCH more than it did 10 years ago. It’s just a fact. The same with health care. You might still be going to the same doctor, and going to the same pharmacy, BUT the cost is higher. Did the doctors do it? No. Did the insurance companies do it? No. Better medications, better treatments, better equipment are to “blame” if you’d like to put it that way. Conditions that used to be automatically fatal aren’t that way now. People are enjoying longer lives. But it doesn’t come for free. And as time moves on, and more treatments are developed, the costs WILL get higher.
Next, let’s add in the fact that many (not all) Americans do not take the proper care of themselves. Of course there are conditions that cannot be helped. My heart goes out to those people. But for those who are “allergic to exercise”, smoke, drink excessively, overeat on a continuing basis, etc., THEY are costing YOU as well. They are costing us all, and guess what? They don’t care.
Anyone who is buying into this farce that “not one dime” will be added to the deficit is simply grabbing onto the Obama “happy train”. All aboard.
By the way, Alyson, I never got a response from my last post from you. You don’t want to discuss the “die quickly” comment?
Look it up, and let me know what you find in the aggregate. It could be enlightening for you.
Posted by: Alyson |
The only number I have ever seen was around 5 billion but I know that must be wrong because that is relatively small number and progressives swear that these companies are public health enemy number one. Problem is I can’t find a progressive that has any idea what the number is.
time for some real competition regardless of the source…
Posted by: Oh Yeah | Oct 13, 2009 2:17:35 PM
Right on! You’re more articulate and lucid than I, but yes!!!
Posted by: Alyson |
You just wandered off the reservation. “Regardless of the source” does not necessarily mean public option. It could mean eliminating the government regulations that prohibit interstate competition. Therefore, this is not an approved approach to “reform”.
Never mind, Alyson. I saw your post. I am assuming you don’t think putting babies (post abortion) in a room to die a slow death isn’t a problem? Mr. Grayson can throw stones all he wants to, but he needs to be careful in his glass house.
I’ll hand it to you, though, you must have a really neat teleprompter keyboard. Your soaring rhetoric is almost as good as Obama’s.
I just want some answers, and this administration isn’t giving any. Their answer to everything is to convince people they cannot live without the government.
Alyson wrote: “…she should’ve mentioned the waste/inefficiencies/advertising and marketing dollars/lobbying dollars/ large number of executives with million dollar salaries/ the bonuses/the private jets/the extravagant expense accounts and then of course, the profits of insurance companies. They throw pretty darned good parties, too, on the company dime.”
And who are the beneficiaries of the “waste/inefficiencies/advertising and marketing dollars/lobbying dollars/ large number of executives with million dollar salaries”…and “darned good parties?” THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (income taxes and sales taxes paid) and THE AMERICAN ECONOMY (all that spending creates jobs)!
Posted by: James Danley | October 13, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 13, 2009 6:02:19 PM
But you didn’t mention patients. Sigh.
Posted by: Shoe | Oct 13, 2009 4:15:32 PM
Actually, I think that’s absolutely horrible and beyond the pale but typically I don’t argue with anti-abortion folks because they get too emotional to take a nitpicky walk through the language of various bills, and robotically dismiss the notion of right to privacy in the first place. They also make sweeping statements and assume to know how a Dem feels about abortion. Hard to get anywhere with folks like that.
“Regardless of the source” does not necessarily mean public option. It could mean eliminating the government regulations that prohibit interstate competition. Therefore, this is not an approved approach to “reform”.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Oct 13, 2009 4:13:23 PM
The only choice wouldn’t be the public option, but interstate competition doesn’t throw a choice besides insurance companies into the mix, right? So, it’s not as far off the reservation as you claim. And I’ve said I’d support a federally regulated national exchange, preferably with a public option, but also with co-ops. I can’t speak for Oh Yeah, but that’s what I gather from full context.
Email
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action' 
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
The health insurance industry threatens to boost policy rates across the board if Congress approves legislation to reform it and reduce costs, claiming the refors will make increases necessary.
The most reasonable response is to take the industry’s threat seriously and include in the bill a very strong, very accessible, public option.
Posted by: mahenry | October 12, 2009, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm
I would love to know why the yokels believe other people should pay for their health insurance but not their fire insurance, bread, auto insurance, life insurance, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies, water and false teeth.
Perhaps we are getting close to the time when the yokels will indeed demand such things. If we get enough yokels we could vote ourselves a workers’ paradise modeled on the Soviet economy.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 8:46 pm 8:46 pm
Does the insurance industry smell a doublecross by Obama? Imagine that.
Posted by: Jeff | October 12, 2009, 8:49 pm 8:49 pm
Jeff:Does the insurance industry smell a doublecross by Obama? Imagine that.
===========
I know, right?
Surely the WH didn’t think they enjoyed an interested party’s *unconditional* support.
Posted by: MayBee | October 12, 2009, 8:55 pm 8:55 pm
We can of course be assured that the analyses of the White House and congressional staff are entirely objective and not at all self-serving. Neither would ever to pull a fast one for short-term political gain.
Neither would they ever propose anything that was economically unsound. Sure, there may a few score trillion dollars of unfunded liability facing Medicare and Social Security, but the kids and grandkids can pick up the tab somehow, right?
Bear in mind that their most recent stroke of genius, after the stimulus, was Cash for Clunkers.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
This administration has failed miserably at the vital work of reinventing our health care system. They put political calendars first, not the nation’s highest good, and this latest Baucus Ghoulash is as foul for the country as all the other bills they tried to ram through.
We deserve better: a real review and reflection of the options; a finished plan that preserves the great good that is our system at the same time that it amplifies access and availability to that good; and a president who does not viciously demean fellow Americans — like doctors, job-creating businesses, and those who disagree — how disgracefully he has behaved in all this.
Hundreds of thousands of people marched to try and open up real dialog. Now it seems the insurance industry, too, sees this whole beast has been handled in bad faith, and their only recourse is to play the game the way this leadership does: mean. Good for them!
I’m calling on my reps to abort this shameful process, start all over and do it right. And don’t bother asking me to vote Democratic ever again.
Posted by: Carol | October 12, 2009, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm
“I would love to know why the yokels believe other people should pay for their health insurance but not their fire insurance, bread, auto insurance, life insurance, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies, water and false teeth.”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 8:46:09 PM
And the rightwing zealots don’t seem to understand that unless we let people literally die of a broken arm if they’re poor, or getting hit by a car if they’re young and too foolish to care insurance, and then let their corpse rot on the street like a third world country (or are you kind enough to pay for those yokel’s burials), we pay for the health care of the poor.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 9:27 pm 9:27 pm
“This administration has failed miserably at the vital work of reinventing our health care system. They put political calendars first, not the nation’s highest good, and this latest Baucus Ghoulash is as foul for the country as all the other bills they tried to ram through.”
Carol | Oct 12, 2009 9:17:26 PM
Oh please. Clinton ‘reinvented’ healthcare from the ground up and did it right – with no concern for political process. How did that work out again? Congress is Constitutionally tasked to make the laws. If you did not expect Obama to take this path, then you were woefully ignorant of his history (Constitutional law professor and proven wonk in the IL senate).
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 9:30 pm 9:30 pm
Carol -
You wrote eloquently of what so many of us think.
Of course, the obama Supporters will, once again, come out on these blogs to defend what cannot be defended.
Sadly for them, the only people they are convincing are other obama Supporters.
The rest of us, not so much.
Posted by: ceeLeelee | October 12, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
I would love to know why the yokels believe other people should pay for their health insurance ….
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 8:46:09 PM
And I would love to know why the true yokels keep bringing up this canard when it has absolutely nothing to do with health care reform or the current debate, except in their stuck-on-repeat imaginations. We already have Medicaid, yes? Some of the big issues that need to be addressed are medical inflation, ever-rising premium costs,affordability for those who own small businesses or are self-employed or who work part-time or for a small employer who can’t afford group coverage for everybody, particularly those with pre-existing conditions, a growing number of uninsureds, pre-existing conditions, recission and so on. You know this.
You also know that health care isn’t a commodity that can be marketed like bread, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies and so on. Most of us can’t/don’t/won’t know when or whether we’ll need health care or what type of care we’ll require— but when we do, the care can be extremely expensive, yes? Not many people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket which means that health care can’t be sold and paid for like bread or vitamins or gardening supplies. We contract with private insurers, and ultimately, someone other than the patient decides what to buy. The whole thing about consumer choice and rationaing and blah, blah, blah is such a joke. Consumer choice is already limited and rationing already occurs. And here’s the thing about insurance companies, which you also know — they’re not patient centered. In fact, their financially incented to deny coverage and claims when we most need it. Paying for an insured’s health care is a loss from an insurance company’s perspective.
And then there’s the complexity issue. Comparison shopping can be difficult for some. Which is why a national insurance exchange that allows for easy comparison shopping is such a great idea.
I agree with mahenry, “The most reasonable response is to take the industry’s threat seriously and include in the bill a very strong, very accessible, public option.”
We need health insurance reform now.
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
Here’s a quote from John Gruber, an MIT health economist, who has crunched some numbers in response to the insurance lobby’s “report”: “Conclusion: The non-partisan analysis based on information from the CBO shows clearly that for those facing purchase in the non-group market, the SFC bill will deliver savings ranging from several hundred dollars for the youngest consumers to over $8500 for families. This is in addition to all the other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers – in particular the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill.”
As Ezra Klein points out, Gruber’s analysis is free from the same glaring deficiencies that were in the AHIP “report.” To find out more, check out Klein’s blog. There’s a link there and a graph and so on.
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
“Sadly for them, the only people they are convincing are other obama Supporters.”
ceeLeelee | Oct 12, 2009 9:38:06 PM
And once all the other “Obama Supporters” – a notoriously broad ideological bunch ranging from Blue Dogs to Dennis Kucinich – are convinced, we will probably have a pretty centrist bill. And once supported by a clear majority of Americans. Not sure what your problem with that is.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm
I love how if you don’t health insurance and refuse to buy what you don’t want….Obama is going to tax you or throw you in jail. Can everyone say FASCIST?
Posted by: PotatoeGater22 | October 12, 2009, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
“(Constitutional law professor and proven wonk in the IL senate).
Nope, not a professor but a lecturer.
Nope, “Present” x 150 is not the work of anything but a proven windsock with no ideological basis.
Nice try though, skippy.
Posted by: 2Brixshy | October 12, 2009, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
They are not convinced yet????
Posted by: ceeLeelee | October 12, 2009, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
Just so everyone understands what’s coming:
“The Massachusetts adventure in health-care reform will take an entirely predictable turn in the near future, say providers within the network. The state panel intends to dictate a narrower network of providers for some insurance plans, which providers insist will result in a reduction of services to patients in hospitals and clinics. Massachusetts wants its citizens to choose second-tier hospitals and clinics to save costs, and plans to eliminate choice as a means to that end.”
The laws of economics are simply not subject to repeal.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
Are there actually sentient beings who believe that we face a choice between allowing people to die of broken arms and the Baucus plan?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm
Price Waterhouse Coopers…just a fly-by-night peddler of tax shelters!
Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals, page 128: “Rule 5: ridicule is the most important weapon.”
Obama has surrounded himself with radicals like William Ayers his whole life.
In fact, Ayers was alloed to write Dreams of My Father.
Posted by: Colonel Rebel | October 12, 2009, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
Present” x 150 is not the work of anything but a proven windsock with no ideological basis.
Posted by: 2Brixshy | Oct 12, 2009 10:1
Not in Illinois, but I’m sure you’ve already read the fact checks on that. Funny thing is you STILL had to inflate the number from 129 out of over 4,000 votes to 150 (shakes head.)What is it with you all and your need to inflate numbers? LOL.
jhw was right: (Constitutional law professor and proven wonk in the IL senate).
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm
“We already have Medicaid, yes?”
Yes, we have it for the truly needy, which is a far cry from subsidizing the insurance premiums of people at three or four times the povert level. In any event it is bankrupting the states, upon whom the congress has imposed an endless succession of unfunded mandates.
Are you unable to understand and acknowledge the fiscal catastrophe of Medicare? Is your plan for addressing the $33 Trillion unfunded liability simply to add more people to the rolls?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
“Some of the big issues that need to be addressed are medical inflation, ever-rising premium costs,affordability for those who own small businesses or are self-employed or who work part-time or for a small employer who can’t afford group coverage for everybody,”
And the Baucus bill addresses these concerns? Why not simply allow interstate competition, as we have with all other forms of insurance?
(If you think Baucus will lower your premiums, you should go back to school. If it passes, your education will begin in 2013.)
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
We won’t even go into the “Present” vote status. It is well known.
AS for the “proven” record of his work in the Senate, wellll, I don’t know about that since he can’t seem to “find” his senatorial records. Maybe what you meant is that he has a proven record of taking credit for other peoples’work.
You will excuse us if we don’t take your word for it, won’t you?
Posted by: ceeLeelee | October 12, 2009, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
“Nope, not a professor but a lecturer.”
2Brixshy | Oct 12, 2009 10:10:18 PM
UC Law School statement: “The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.”
The rank of professor is given by accredited institutions, Obama served as a professor, he was even offered tenure at one point and turned it down. Why is it right wingers are always so easily proven to be wrong? I’m not sure if it is the result of a culture that glorifies honest ignorance or straight out lying, but it is why their credibility is absolutely shot.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm
“The Massachusetts adventure in health-care reform …
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:14:02 PM
Let’s look at that realistically, shall we, cuz we can all cherry pick…
From the Boston Globe: “Controlling Massachusetts’ soaring medical costs, many health care leaders believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want…There is little doubt that the state’s current system of broad choice and sometimes uncoordinated care has helped push Massachusetts health care costs above the national average. It can lead to unnecessary duplication of medical tests, when patients see multiple providers, each often unaware of what the others have done. And thousands of residents get knee replacement surgery, have babies at teaching hospitals, or other care, when often a less-expensive hospital would be more economical and provide good-quality care.”
Makes sense to me, but here’s the money quote: “The Massachusetts proposal would involve a more ambitious restructuring of health care than any of the cost-cutting ideas being discussed in Washington.”
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm
“Are there actually sentient beings who believe that we face a choice between allowing people to die of broken arms and the Baucus plan?”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:16:00 PM
You keep pushing the lie that health care reform suddenly means ‘yokels’ get free (paid for by those responsible enough to carry insurance) health care, implying they don’t get it now. Do you honestly believe that, or are you just lying?
The Baucus bill isn’t perfect, and my giving a few hundred dollars to the local food bank won’t eliminate world hunger. That doesn’t mean either is not worth doing.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm
…Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals, page 128: “Rule 5: ridicule is the most important weapon.”
Today, October 12, 2009, 15 minutes ago | Colonel Rebel
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, finally I find the source of Rush Limbaugh’s (the Republican Party Leader) mode of operation.
Thanks…didn’t know that!
Posted by: ErnestNM | October 12, 2009, 10:42 pm 10:42 pm
Why not simply allow interstate competition, as we have with all other forms of insurance?
***
I’m all for interstate competition if it’s not used a trojan horse for deregulation– so say via a federally regulated national insurance exchange, especially if you throw in a fresh competitor in the form of a public option! But even without the public option I’d be all in if we replaced state regulation with another option, which would be federal regulation.
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm
“You also know that health care isn’t a commodity that can be marketed like bread, vegetables, vitamins, automobiles, light bulbs, gardening supplies and so on. Most of us can’t/don’t/won’t know when or whether we’ll need health care or what type of care we’ll require— but when we do, the care can be extremely expensive, yes?”
Health care may not be a commodity–whatever that may mean–but health care insurance surely is, ever bit as much as life insurance, auto insurance, fire insurance and vegetables are.
The fact that we do not know when we are going to need health care is precisely the reason we insure ourselves against the financial risks it may pose. (I take it you feel that if my house catches fire I should be able to get on my cell phone and instantly order up an insurance policy, right? No point in buying insurance until we need it…)
Your concern for, and patronizing attitude toward, those for whom comparison shopping is just too “complex” is hardly an excuse for disrupting the arrangements that 250 million responsible Americans find to their liking. In any case almost all Americans decide more complex issues frequently in their lives–no need to be so condescending.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
“And the Baucus bill addresses these concerns? Why not simply allow interstate competition, as we have with all other forms of insurance?”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:31:22 PM
Because every reputable analysis indicates that won’t bring down costs significantly. Which should be obvious – California has the population of the 20 smallest states combined, more than many countries yet it isn’t a big enough market?!?!? Do you assume everyone is an idiot and can’t understand that obvious illustration that market size is not the problem? And do you even know what “interstate competition” means? Are you saying Blue Cross, Wellpoint, Aetna, United Healthgroup are NOT interstate corporations? Beyond the bumpersticker, what do you mean by ‘allow interstate competition’ – I mean Wellpoint is in 14 states, is that not interstate? Are you just advocating the Feds stripping states of their state power to regulate business within their borders?
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
March 30, 2008
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
WASHINGTON — The University of Chicago released a statement Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama “served as a professor” in the law school — but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.
“He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school.”
*************************************
He has already been “elected” so no need to push the manure any further. Most of us already know his resume was padded.
Lol. :D
Posted by: ceeLeelee | October 12, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
“And here’s the thing about insurance companies, which you also know — they’re not patient centered. In fact, their financially incented to deny coverage and claims when we most need it.”
So is the government. That is why the claims denial rate for Medicare is nearly double that for private insurers. You don’t have an enforceable contract against the government. You do against an insurer, and they know it.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
“Health care may not be a commodity–whatever that may mean–but health care insurance surely is,”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:45:07 PM
“Commodity, noun, an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.”
HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A COMMODITY. It is impossible to have a debate if you do not even accept the English language.
Some people will literally die without health care. The need for a million dollars of health care to avoid death is entirely unpredictable – ask Lance Armstrong. Comparing it to vegetables and calling it a commodity… I’m not sure if you’re joking or what. It’s like you’re earnestly recommending new muffler bearings and a top of head light fluid to fix up an old car.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
… Why is it right wingers are always so easily proven to be wrong? I’m not sure if it is the result of a culture that glorifies honest ignorance or straight out lying, but it is why their credibility is absolutely shot.
Today, October 12, 2009, 6 minutes ago | jhw539
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Come on…everybody already knows…”straight out lying”.
And the interesting thing is that they do it even though they know they are either writing down the words, or being video and audio taped…all of which can (and does) later stand as irrefutable evidence that they lied!
And, when they get caught, they simply move on to the next topic ‘du jour’ to see if it will ‘stick’.
I’m thinking that they need to go back to basics…like say cooking spaghetti till it sticks to the wall.
Posted by: ErnestNM | October 12, 2009, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
“So is the government. That is why the claims denial rate for Medicare is nearly double that for private insurers.”
Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:51:00 PM
Sure thing. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that private insurers require pre-approval PRIOR to a claim, and pre-approval denials are conveniently omitted from their statistics while Medicare does not have a pre-approval board to kill claims. Provide a definition of denial from a reputable source or it’s pretty safe to assume that you’re just another right winger lying.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 12, 2009, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
He has already been “elected” so no need to push the manure …
Posted by: ceeLeelee | Oct 12, 2009 10:50:52 PM
Speaking of pushers of manure, lol–
Yes, he’s already been elected so there’s no reason to keep lying in hopes to get another candidate in office. Sheesh. You all like bringing up old debunked canards. An oldie but goodie, but easy to respond to with the source that would know. Turns out the University of Chicago disagrees with you, as you should have known–
“UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 10:58 pm 10:58 pm
Provide a definition of denial from a reputable source or it’s pretty safe to assume that you’re just another right winger lying.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 12, 2009 10:56:24 PM
I think a few rightwingers have been quoting a report that was cited on the big government website about denial of claim lines, in Medicare’s case, typically for incomplete information, and before appeal and all of that. The so-called conclusions of the HSA consultant who brought the report to big governments attention have been unpacked a bit. It’s a rightwinger meme on conservative and teapartier type blogs. I can’t recall all the problems with the claim, but there are many– number one being that the report itself doesn’t conclude the same thing the consultant does because that’s not what it was designed to measure in any conclusive way. It was designed as a consulting tool to help medical offices get claims paid efficiently, I believe. It’s been a few days since I looked at it. I’ll look it up again tomorrow cuz Fascist is the third rightwinger I’ve seen tried to slip it in a post as an actual fact.
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 11:06 pm 11:06 pm
In any case almost all Americans decide more complex issues frequently in their lives–no need to be so condescending.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 12, 2009 10:45:07 PM
I’m not being condescending. In fact on health care forums one thing most people regardless of party seem to agree on is that they’d love to be able to plug in their information and pull up easily accessible comparisons by cost and coverage of the policies that would best suit them.
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 11:09 pm 11:09 pm
ROFLMAO!
I read that report too, and a bunch of others.
Like I said before – PADDED RESUME!
Lol. :D
Posted by: ceeLeelee | October 12, 2009, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
Good night, Fascist and others. I didn’t get to all your points but we both know that much of this is the same old, same old and I gotta roll. We’ll see what happens tomorrow :>)
Posted by: Alyson | October 12, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
“In fact on health care forums one thing most people regardless of party seem to agree on is that they’d love to be able to plug in their information and pull up easily accessible comparisons by cost and coverage of the policies that would best suit them.”
You may be entirely assured that were it not for the congressional ban on interstate sales of health insurance, everyone could do precisely that. Even under the current system anyone who can use a computer can price a whole array of options–but you’re limited to the companies that sell in your state. In California, that’s a six-firm oligopoly instead of an aggressively competitive market with hundreds of providers.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm
It takes an enormous amount of hubris for an industry, who in large part created the health care crisis by over-charging its customers, to-in the face of imminent reform- threaten even more price increases. I’m only an old, bald, independent, western yokel, but this entire debate became grossly overly complicated. Put simply-a bunch of folks and corporations are charging too much. Now the corporate bullies threaten us with even more price increases if we tip over their game.
Posted by: B.Bear | October 12, 2009, 11:31 pm 11:31 pm
Summary of the Price-Waterhouse conclusions:
In other words, the average family will be paying $4,000 more per year for health insurance premiums under the Baucus bill than if nothing were done. Rather than bring costs under control, as any reform worth its salt would have to do (and as reforms that would introduce real private sector competition into the insurance sector would do) the bill would actually increase the rate at which those costs are growing.
There can be an honest dispute about the precise amount of the increases, but not about the fact that they will occur. It is not possible for it to be otherwise.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 12, 2009, 11:37 pm 11:37 pm
did obama get his phd? i’m wondering because it truly surprises me that he would be offered a tenured professorship if he had not. that’s not the way major research universities operate…
Posted by: kelli | October 12, 2009, 11:44 pm 11:44 pm
To my knowledge, he does not have a phd. A lot of revisionist history has taken place concerning Obama — to include the professor vs. senior lecturer debate.
Posted by: ceeLeelee | October 12, 2009, 11:55 pm 11:55 pm
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 13, 2009, 12:10 am 12:10 am
it’s time to put the screws to the insurance industry for blackmailing the american people, same for the oil speculators, and the greedy pharm and banking corporations…
bending over backward for corporations while they bankrupt the people is utter nonsense. you could have cross state competition and it would still be meaningless, as you would have to believe that the health insurance companies would somehow ‘get religion’ after all these years of bleeding the citizens.
time for universal healthcare with a public option
Posted by: Espirito Sancti | October 13, 2009, 12:10 am 12:10 am
Gallop has Obama at 56% approval
McClatchy has Obama at 56% approval
Quinnipiac has Obama at 50% approval
Pew has Obama at 52% approval
why does that fascist hyena guy always lie about what’s happening by only posting the Rasmussen results ?
Posted by: ? | October 13, 2009, 12:17 am 12:17 am
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.
Today, October 12, 2009, 1 minute ago | Fascist Hyena
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I plotted the entire set of Rasmussen ‘Approval Index rating’ data.
If it were a typical stock a chartist would say that it has almost completed a ‘picture perfect’ ‘Inverted Head and Shoulders’ pattern.
This would mean that it has seen its bottom (-14 on Aug 24) and is in a bullish phase.
It has bounced off of ‘resistance’ at -3 on Sep 14. If it breaks this resistance (and if behaves like a stock), it will have completed the pattern, and would likely go to +10 (the previous high) in the next 3 months. It would then go towards +28 (last seen on Jan 21) over the next several months afterwards.
I’ve never thought about these polls as behaving like stocks.
I guess the intense false negativity conveyed by the right lately is the financial equivalent of ‘Shorting’ the stock.
We’ll see if there is a ‘Short Covering’ rally in the offing.
I guess we are going see how representative of a stock Barack’s ‘Approval Index rating’ is.
Posted by: ErnestNM | October 13, 2009, 12:19 am 12:19 am
Today’s inspirational government-run health care story:
A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease had returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a controversial ‘death pathway’.
Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year- old Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water and medication except painkillers.
He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that his cancer had not come back and he was in fact suffering from pneumonia brought on by a chest infection.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 13, 2009, 1:02 am 1:02 am
I strongly believe that Zoolander and Congress will get us a great health care – no make that health insurance program. I think now that Derek has his new Blue Steel look working for him with the Nobel committee, everything is going to work out great.
All of those unemployed people are just astro-turf as Pelosi would say.
Posted by: welldirected | October 13, 2009, 1:26 am 1:26 am
We’ll see soon enough, but based on my skimming of the news this morning, it looks like the AHIP report ticked off some of the very people the insurance lobby hoped to influence. Indeed, in light of the AHIP stunt, many “in the know” are saying that the chances that some kind of public option will make it into the final bill have now increased (which is what I was hoping.) Keep pushing, progressives, Dems, liberals and reform-minded folks!! The people’s desire for insurance reform and an affordable, competitive and robust public option can and should prevail (fingers crossed.)
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
We’ll see soon enough, but based on my skimming of the news this morning, it looks like the AHIP report ticked off some of the very people the insurance lobby hoped to influence. Indeed, in light of the AHIP stunt, many “in the know” are saying that the chances that some kind of public option will make it into the final bill have now increased (which is what I was hoping.) Keep pushing, progressives, Dems, liberals and reform-minded folks!! The people’s desire for insurance reform and an affordable, competitive and robust public option can and should prevail (fingers crossed.)
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
It all comes down to the health and by extension, the financial well-being of our citizens, our country’s economic health vs. the profits of the health insurance industry.
Without competition, the health insurance industry has grown bloated, raised its profits and ceo salaries too high and routinely cancels policies or denies coverage for its sickest patients. This bad behavior hasn’t stopped but grown worse.
At some point we must recognize that the upward spiraling premium cost is now affecting our economy. Just in our family, every year our raises are just about taken up by the higher price for our policy. This means we have little extra to buy the goods that fuel the economy. Multiply that by millions of families to see the drain on our economy.
We need a public option to keep our premiums down and give those unable to afford private insurance some means of buying coverage. Our fellow citizens dying because they lacked insurance has to stop.
Posted by: Lydia | October 13, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
Maybe I’m being too simplistic here, but why hasn’t the MSM, Congress, the President, or anyone else for that matter, approached the subject of a growing population and research/development in the medical industry as reasons for insurance cost increases as well.
Let’s face facts. People are living longer than ever before. Some of it is taking responsibility for their own health, living well, and living long. But for many, so many barriers have been broken in research, development and administration of new equipment and medications that a longer life span is within reach. And, as the population in our country grows and grows, more treatments, more specialists, more equipment, etc. will be needed. The cost of an expanded population’s health care, along with development of new technologies for that care is overwhelming. But, instead of discussing those simple points, it’s easier for the White House to point fingers at the insurance companies and pin the high costs directly on them. I’m not saying they don’t have their faults, but as health care costs go up, their insurance rates must go up to match it. You could almost compare it with automobiles. As new technologies and safety equipment make for better cars and trucks, that research, development and implementation must be paid for. How? Look at the sticker price. Nobody WANTS to pay more for a better, safer, more fuel efficient car, but if you want it, you’ll pay for it. The same with health care. Nobody WANTS to pay more, but if you want the best, cutting edge, technological advancements, you’ll have to pay for it.
The White House can claim savings all they want, but the bottom line is this-with new lives coming in and an elderly population living longer, healthier lives, more and more and more people will need healthcare. If they can convince me that adding more people to an already stressed out system will actually SAVE money, I’ll eat my humble pie.
Posted by: Shoe | October 13, 2009, 11:44 am 11:44 am
Shoe, great comment! I agree with all that you said. However, I would add one important item. Some of those who are living longer are not healthy at all. Some require routine treatments (i.e., regular blood transfusions) in order to continue to live. Others require expensive medications just to survive–yet with these medications may have a life expectancy of another 20 years.
Posted by: James Danley | October 13, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
Maybe I’m being too simplistic here…
Posted by: Shoe | Oct 13, 2009 11:44:18 AM
Yes, because you’re not looking at the other side of the same point, and that is overly simplistic. To touch on that just a bit as I’m pressed for time, if you want to use the car analogy, let’s go there. So, if you want to get a top-of-the-line car it will cost more, but you would think you’d be able to buy other safe and efficient options that are affordable, and competitive with foreign options, and that the industry would innovate and evolve to meet the market’s needs and demands. Some of us (a lot of us) just want another choice that better meets our needs, and that choice looks a lot like what is available in other countries. It’s the status quo folks whose needs are met, at least for now, that won’t allow us to innovate to meet the needs of more people and actually, the future of business and work as that’s trending in a direction where the tie between health insurance coverage and employment makes less and less sense. I see the clinging to the status quo and the refusal to innovate and allow additional affordable options that are competitive with what is available in every other first world nation as extremely self-centered and short-sighted, but bygones, I’m sure there’s an ideological excuse for all that and some vast conspiracy theory about communism and what not (eyeroll)
Insurance companies are financially incented not to cover sick persons and to find a way not to pay out on claims once a person becomes ill. And they are ruthless when it comes to lobbying against reform– hence the pointed fingers. I worked for insurance and managed care companies for 16 years. Read Wendell Potter’s interviews. He’s spot on.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
It all comes down to the health and by extension, the financial well-being of our citizens, our country’s economic health vs. the profits of the health insurance industry.
***
Exactly. Nice post. What’s interesting is that now even Price Waterhouse is backing away from AHIP and putting out statements that undermine their client.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
“It all comes down to the health and by extension, the financial well-being of our citizens, our country’s economic health vs. the profits of the health insurance industry.”
Really? What are the combined annual profits of the health insurance companies? And how does it compare to the 50 billion a year in Medicare waste/abuse/fraud that we hear so much about?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | October 13, 2009, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
What are the combined annual profits of the health insurance companies? And how does it compare to the 50 billion a year in Medicare waste/abuse/fraud that we hear so much about?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Oct 13, 2009 1:34:16 PM
Oh, okay, she shouldn’t have just pointed out profits– she should’ve mentioned the waste/inefficiencies/advertising and marketing dollars/lobbying dollars/ large number of executives with million dollar salaries/ the bonuses/the private jets/the extravagant expense accounts and then of course, the profits of insurance companies. They throw pretty darned good parties, too, on the company dime.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
Alyson, once again, you are completely off the topic. My point is that you cannot simply point fingers at insurance companies and blame them for high health care costs. As technology and medicines evolve, and people are receiving care (insurance or not) and being able to live longer, of course there is going to be a cost.
As far as the statement comparing this to buying a car, the point, once again, is that technology and development are moving forward, therefore, the prices move with it. Of course you have a choice of vehicles, but the point remains that prices increase as the product improves. Haven’t you noticed that if you buy a newer, better car or truck, your insurance goes up? So, as health care moves forward, health insurance must go along with that. It isn’t the insurance industry’s problem that even though the equipment and processes are in place to make people healthier, the majority STILL do not take the personal responsibility to take care of themselves.
The liberal party seems to think that they have the answers to any question about health care. But the one they still have YET to answer is HOW are “costs” going to be kept down when we’re going to add millions to the plan, research and development processes still need to be paid for, and we have a generation of kids who don’t even know how to go outside and play anymore? Does that add up to savings? Someone PLEASE explain that one.
While we’re on the subject of health care, I noticed that the liberals are very excited about the “die quickly” mantra revealed a couple of weeks ago. Let’s just remind everyone that the same party who is touting this kind of ignorance is the party who also doesn’t mind a baby, after being aborted but yet living, be shuffled off to a different room at the hospital and left to die. I wonder if the Democrats want that “mistake” to “die quickly”? Answer that one for me as well, Alyson. The “morals” of your liberal party are enough for anyone to need health care…they indeed make me sick.
Posted by: Shoe | October 13, 2009, 1:54 pm 1:54 pm
Oh, okay, she shouldn’t have just pointed out profits…
Posted by: Alyson |
Excellent. Add all that stuff in too. How much are we talking?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | October 13, 2009, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
You could almost compare it with automobiles.
Posted by: Shoe
except of course.. that with the japanese cars, ‘they’ eventually made better, more reliable fuel efficient leading technology cars for less than the american counterparts, ‘they’ were dismissed by the car monopolies and the US citizens because we were all used to ‘buying american’… until.. like the insurance company dilemma today, the citizens realized they didn’t have to ‘buy american’, and ‘take it or leave it’ with poor product and worse service…. because now they had a real choice.
That’s where we are today….. we are used to dealing with one option for health insurance, different companies, but basically one option…. time for some real competition regardless of the source…
Posted by: Oh Yeah | October 13, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
The “morals” of your liberal party are enough for anyone to need health care…they indeed make me sick.
Posted by: Shoe | Oct 13, 2009 1:54:18 PM
Ah well. Which liberal party is that? We could go on and on about all that. The morals of the GOP are why I’m more anti-GOP than anything else, including Democrat. Perhaps you missed that post. My party is “anti-GOP.” And yes, I’m pro-progressive and I like Obama way more than I’ve liked other politicians. I’ve voted for Dems and independents, including a Libertarian– once a rather liberal Republican for a local office after she assured me she hadn’t voted for Bush. When I have more time I can list why I think the GOP party platform and record is immoral. The list would take a couple hours to type up but I’m sure you know the short list. Unlike ahem, others, I’m not all into the whole “wow, look at me, I’m very self-righteous” thang.
As for the rest of your comment, I didn’t miss your point and I wasn’t off topic. You just don’t get it. LOL. Health insurance goes up with cost, yes, and there are many reasons costs are rising and some of them are good. Many are not. But that doesn’t mean the private and public health care and payor sectors can’t innovate to do something about rising costs– will costs still rise with technological advances? Yes. Do they have to rise more than salaries and the medical costs in other countries in a proportion unequal to the benefits we derive from advances? No. But some are unwilling to let go of the status quo and look at the problem and ways to deal with it beyond the tired talking points (tort reform without equal shrift given to patient safety, and so on.) They talk up innovation while being scared to death of innovating. It’s hilarious. And stupid. And short sighted. And self-centered. And stubborn. Part of the reason they don’t get it– or refuse to take an honest look at it– is that the health insurance sector is very good at both buying influence in D.C. Very. good.
I suggest you read some of Wendell Potter’s interviews to get at why the insurance industry gets fingers pointed at it.
Oh, and btw, yes, I did like Grayson’s floor comments. They made me chuckle. They were purposely over the top though less over the top than the ridiculous comments made by many Republicans. It’s hilarious to see people who went on about death panels and communists get hypocritically outraged, without enough self awareness to get the joke or irony. The GOP likes to kick problems down the road. That’s no big secret. Did you hear some of the GOP reps comments to town hall goers with health issues? Enlightening. Grayson hit a nerve because he perfectly captured what they said to their constituents. Don’t get sick. If you do, die quickly (and, oh yeah, I’ll pray for you. Maybe others can, too.) That’s what’s really sickening. Sheesh.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
How much are we talking?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Oct 13, 2009 2:04:34 PM
Look it up, and let me know what you find in the aggregate. It could be enlightening for you.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
except of course.. that with the japanese cars, ‘they’ eventually made better, more reliable fuel efficient leading technology cars for less than the american counterparts, ‘they’ were dismissed by the car monopolies and the US citizens because we were all used to ‘buying american’… until.. like the insurance company dilemma today, the citizens realized they didn’t have to ‘buy american’, and ‘take it or leave it’ with poor product and worse service…. because now they had a real choice.
That’s where we are today….. we are used to dealing with one option for health insurance, different companies, but basically one option…. time for some real competition regardless of the source…
Posted by: Oh Yeah | Oct 13, 2009 2:17:35 PM
***
Right on! You’re more articulate and lucid than I, but yes!!!
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
Okay, for the last time…for those of you who have not read my previous posts (under “Shoe”) please read. For those who have and STILL don’t get the point, here we go again…
I am NOT talking about insurance choices. I am talking about COST. The Obama administration is trying to convince the American public that they can enact a policy of insurance coverage for MILLIONS of uninsured, AND do it without adding to the deficit. BULL. In the simplest of terms, cost goes up as time goes on. You cannot control that and still expect pharmaceutical and equipment advancements. You cannot expect to get the top notch healthcare at the same price. To say that they are going to add on a tremendous number of people, continue to research and develop in the medical field, train and retrain doctors, nurses, staff, etc. and do it without increasing the deficit?? In the words of Mr. Wilson “YOU LIE”.
Going back to the “car routine” I’ve been using, here’s something that cannot be argued. As advancements in the automotive industry have come about, prices have gone up. You can say what you want about “choices” but the fact STILL remains that a Ford Taurus now costs MUCH more than it did 10 years ago. It’s just a fact. The same with health care. You might still be going to the same doctor, and going to the same pharmacy, BUT the cost is higher. Did the doctors do it? No. Did the insurance companies do it? No. Better medications, better treatments, better equipment are to “blame” if you’d like to put it that way. Conditions that used to be automatically fatal aren’t that way now. People are enjoying longer lives. But it doesn’t come for free. And as time moves on, and more treatments are developed, the costs WILL get higher.
Next, let’s add in the fact that many (not all) Americans do not take the proper care of themselves. Of course there are conditions that cannot be helped. My heart goes out to those people. But for those who are “allergic to exercise”, smoke, drink excessively, overeat on a continuing basis, etc., THEY are costing YOU as well. They are costing us all, and guess what? They don’t care.
Anyone who is buying into this farce that “not one dime” will be added to the deficit is simply grabbing onto the Obama “happy train”. All aboard.
By the way, Alyson, I never got a response from my last post from you. You don’t want to discuss the “die quickly” comment?
Posted by: Shoe | October 13, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
Look it up, and let me know what you find in the aggregate. It could be enlightening for you.
Posted by: Alyson |
The only number I have ever seen was around 5 billion but I know that must be wrong because that is relatively small number and progressives swear that these companies are public health enemy number one. Problem is I can’t find a progressive that has any idea what the number is.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | October 13, 2009, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
time for some real competition regardless of the source…
Posted by: Oh Yeah | Oct 13, 2009 2:17:35 PM
Right on! You’re more articulate and lucid than I, but yes!!!
Posted by: Alyson |
You just wandered off the reservation. “Regardless of the source” does not necessarily mean public option. It could mean eliminating the government regulations that prohibit interstate competition. Therefore, this is not an approved approach to “reform”.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | October 13, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
Never mind, Alyson. I saw your post. I am assuming you don’t think putting babies (post abortion) in a room to die a slow death isn’t a problem? Mr. Grayson can throw stones all he wants to, but he needs to be careful in his glass house.
I’ll hand it to you, though, you must have a really neat teleprompter keyboard. Your soaring rhetoric is almost as good as Obama’s.
I just want some answers, and this administration isn’t giving any. Their answer to everything is to convince people they cannot live without the government.
Posted by: Shoe | October 13, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
Alyson wrote: “…she should’ve mentioned the waste/inefficiencies/advertising and marketing dollars/lobbying dollars/ large number of executives with million dollar salaries/ the bonuses/the private jets/the extravagant expense accounts and then of course, the profits of insurance companies. They throw pretty darned good parties, too, on the company dime.”
And who are the beneficiaries of the “waste/inefficiencies/advertising and marketing dollars/lobbying dollars/ large number of executives with million dollar salaries”…and “darned good parties?” THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (income taxes and sales taxes paid) and THE AMERICAN ECONOMY (all that spending creates jobs)!
Posted by: James Danley | October 13, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 13, 2009 6:02:19 PM
But you didn’t mention patients. Sigh.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm
Posted by: Shoe | Oct 13, 2009 4:15:32 PM
Actually, I think that’s absolutely horrible and beyond the pale but typically I don’t argue with anti-abortion folks because they get too emotional to take a nitpicky walk through the language of various bills, and robotically dismiss the notion of right to privacy in the first place. They also make sweeping statements and assume to know how a Dem feels about abortion. Hard to get anywhere with folks like that.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
“Regardless of the source” does not necessarily mean public option. It could mean eliminating the government regulations that prohibit interstate competition. Therefore, this is not an approved approach to “reform”.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Oct 13, 2009 4:13:23 PM
The only choice wouldn’t be the public option, but interstate competition doesn’t throw a choice besides insurance companies into the mix, right? So, it’s not as far off the reservation as you claim. And I’ve said I’d support a federally regulated national exchange, preferably with a public option, but also with co-ops. I can’t speak for Oh Yeah, but that’s what I gather from full context.
Posted by: Alyson | October 13, 2009, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm