Health care pt5

[JasonF]

I see two possibilities (not counting stuff like "Senator Lieberman has gone insane").

Possibility one is that Senator Lieberman will wind up voting for cloture, but he's trying to extract something in return. I don't know what that something is, but I'd bet there is something.

If he doesn't vote for cloture, the caucus has no reason to allow him to keep his seniority and his chairmanships. They basically extended an olive branch to him in 2008; if he turns around and bites them on the first vote where they need him, there is no incentive not to punish him severely. He knows this.

Possibility two is he's getting ready to leave the Senate to go work for Fox News as a hihgly paid talking head, and he wants the credibility with the right he would get by blowing up the public option.

[X]

You forgot the most obvious reason that a person who appears to have come around in the last several years to putting belief before party would have said this -- he realizes the "public option" isn't good for the public.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by X

You forgot the most obvious reason that a person who appears to have come around in the last several years to putting belief before party would have said this -- he realizes the "public option" isn't good for the public.

Now who's being naive, Kay?

[hahn]

Originally Posted by X

You forgot the most obvious reason that a person who appears to have come around in the last several years to putting belief before party would have said this -- he realizes the "public option" isn't good for the public.

What? How is having a public option bad for anyone??

I honestly don't understand the position by the Republicans. They're against a public option, but they want private health care insurance to be required. In spite of estimates that private health care insurance companies' profits have increased over 400% from 2000 to 2007. Meanwhile, at the same time their profits have been soaring, coverage has decreased. Now they want to force the public to buy this? Why? Do they actually believe the health care insurance companies will lower their rates or improve their coverage???

For-profit health care insurance companies should be illegal. Period.

[classicman2]

I wasn't aware that the the Repubs want private health care insurance to be required.

For-profit health care insurance companies should be illegal. Period.

Do you really believe that?

[wmansir]

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

Edit: I know it's a repost.

I noticed after the WH pushed back in the press over Palin's "death panels" comment that for several weeks the press would routinely mention the charge with the preface like "debunked claims of death panels.....". I would be lying if I said I had any hope this would happen for claims of gross health insurance profiteering.

[BKenn01]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Harry Reid obviously does.

I don't know if it will get 60 votes for passage, but I assume Senator Reid has whipped the caucus and believes he will have enough votes for cloture. I hope he's right.

I pray he is wrong....

Its time for an all out blitz to destroy this thing. The Red State Dems have to feel their job is on the line, that is the only way to stop it.

[Sdallnct]

Originally Posted by hahn

For-profit health care insurance companies should be illegal. Period.

1st...private health care doesn't make that much profit. Do a little research including Fortunes ratings of industry (be sure and look ONLY at health care, not Life Insurance lumped in with Health care).

2nd...I want a FOR profit company. Look at auto insurance. Highly competitive, many choices from many companies and a great value. The companies compete by keeping cost down (being most efficient) and offering the best customer service. Claims are claims...the "profit" comes from efficiency, and good customer service. Take the profit away and no incentive what so ever to be the best you can be.

3rd...take profit away and what do you have? Look at homeowners in Florida or the National Flood program.

4th...for profit doesn't mean you deny claims to make money. Premiums are based on paying claims. Again, the profit comes from how efficient you can be. And if the incentive is profit, then you will do it. Besides, look at Medicare. They deny their fair share of claims.

[Nugent]

Originally Posted by hahn

What? How is having a public option bad for anyone??

I honestly don't understand the position by the Republicans. They're against a public option, but they want private health care insurance to be required. In spite of estimates that private health care insurance companies' profits have increased over 400% from 2000 to 2007. Meanwhile, at the same time their profits have been soaring, coverage has decreased. Now they want to force the public to buy this? Why? Do they actually believe the health care insurance companies will lower their rates or improve their coverage???

For-profit health care insurance companies should be illegal. Period.

You have been guzzling too much of Mizz Pelosi's propaganda it would seem.
Where exactly to you get your "facts"? I just see some nonsense numbers being thrown around.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/...alth_insurance

THE CLAIMS

_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10

[BKenn01]

You guys are wasting your breath, the Left wants that 2% (plus the additional money it is going to take) feeding more bureaucrats. Profit is evil, remember........

[hahn]

Originally Posted by Nugent

You have been guzzling too much of Mizz Pelosi's propaganda it would seem.
Where exactly to you get your "facts"? I just see some nonsense numbers being thrown around.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/...alth_insurance

I get my "facts" from the companies' own financial statements. 2.2% on $100 would not be a lot. 2.2% on $45 billion is $3.3 billion. That would be United Healthcare in 2006. Fortune 500 list of health care insurance companies and their revenue/profit from 2006. And actually, if you look up the annual financials on Google or Yahoo Finance, they ended the full year of 2006 with a profit of $4.2 billion. In 2007, they made $4.6 billion.

Let's compare that to a company that most would recognize and consider to do quite well: Apple. In 2007, Apple had a net profit of $3.5 billion. In 2006, their net profit was $2 billion. So you're going to argue that United Healthcare's profits aren't very big?? You're being fooled by the percentage of profit margin. It might seem slim, but the revenues are so huge, it's a gigantic chunk of change. And unlike most other industries, they have very tight control over their costs through denials of claims. I don't believe that any of those for-profit companies listed have EVER had a loss in any fiscal quarter. EDIT: I just Googled and couldn't come up with ANY for-profit healthcare insurance company that has ever experienced a loss. If one had their head buried in the sand deep enough, one might believe that it's because they're ALL just that efficient and well-managed.

Yes, pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies make even more, but don't even get me started on how I feel about them. I'm not suggesting that healthcare insurance companies are the only problem in healthcare, but the idea of *healthcare* insurance companies operating on profit and growth is completely counter to the objective of providing quality healthcare to the maximum number of people.

And btw, for those who brought up other types of insurance, you cannot compare them to healthcare insurance. Not EVERYONE will get into a car accident. The vast majority of people will go through the hospital at some point in their lives and will use up far more than their contributed proportion of the pot.

Healthcare insurance is fatally flawed idea. It allows physicians to run many expensive tests without hesitation because they don't have to feel guilty about charging the patient (most physicians don't even know what the patients are charged), since the insurance companies are *supposed* to pay for it. They order *everything* even if it's unlikely because they want to cover their asses. Then when insurance companies who don't really have a good idea on a case to case basis of what's a justifiable charge and what isn't get the bill, they deny everything putting the impetus on either the hospital or patient to justify it.

Then you add in the notion of healthcare insurance for profit and everything just gets FUBAR'd.

BTW, here are some more interesting "facts" for you to chew on. Even as early as 2001 (way before the economic problems) medical bills were the leading cause of bankruptcy. AND, more than 3/4 of these had health insurance at the start of their illness. 38% were dropped by their health insurance company after they were diagnosed. LINK

Out of curiosity, to those of you who are arguing in support of private healthcare insurance - have any of you or your family members/close friends ever actually had a major illness that required expensive tests and/or treatments? I'm talking about needing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[hahn]

Originally Posted by BKenn01

You guys are wasting your breath, the Left wants that 2% (plus the additional money it is going to take) feeding more bureaucrats. Profit is evil, remember........

By itself, profit is not evil. Profiting off ill people, however, is. You're entitled to your morals, as warped as I find them to be.

[DeputyDave]

Originally Posted by hahn

What? How is having a public option bad for anyone??

I honestly don't understand the position by the Republicans. They're against a public option, but they want private health care insurance to be required. In spite of estimates that private health care insurance companies' profits have increased over 400% from 2000 to 2007. Meanwhile, at the same time their profits have been soaring, coverage has decreased. Now they want to force the public to buy this? Why? Do they actually believe the health care insurance companies will lower their rates or improve their coverage???

For-profit health care insurance companies should be illegal. Period.

I'm not a Republican but I haven't heard many claiming they want to make private health care insurance mandatory. Now, as a conservative I want nothing of the sort. Is that the newest statist talking point? Because you seem to be regurgitating all of the others.

[hahn]

Originally Posted by DeputyDave

I'm not a Republican but I haven't heard many claiming they want to make private health care insurance mandatory. Now, as a conservative I want nothing of the sort. Is that the newest statist talking point? Because you seem to be regurgitating all of the others.

I worded that kind of poorly. The current (and as far as I know all of the previous ones) version of the healthcare overhaul bill has a mandatory healthcare insurance mandate. It is in there because it is popular with both parties. However, the Republicans are against the public option. Thus, what they want is everyone to be required to be insured, but without a public option, you are forced to buy from a private healthcare insurance company. The Republicans fear that if you have a cheaper public option, all the healthy people will go for that and private healthcare companies will suffer because people will then only go to them for insurance when they're actually sick. This is what the mandatory healthcare insurance is supposed to prevent.

IMHO, if no public option is available and healthcare insurance is mandatory, what will happen is a whole bunch of new healthcare insurance companies will then spring up that offer very very cheap healthcare insurance if you're young and not sick at all. Which then defeats the beneficial aim of mandatory healthcare insurance anyhow.

Neither scenario is ideal to me (I am against the idea of healthcare insurance in general), but I trust a public option more to provide a cheap alternative without trying to profit from it. And speaking as a physician, I would rather have a higher likelihood of a smaller payment each time, rather than have the possibility of no payment at all.

As a slight digression, I do believe that insurance reform is only the first step because healthcare insurance companies aren't the ONLY problem. Costs in medicine are ridiculous. Only problem is I don't even know where to begin. You look at some of the medical equipment around the hospital and if you ever bother to ask how much it costs (I have), you'd be shocked (I was). The healthcare system in general, has built a veritable fortress around itself and its profits. It's not going to be easy to take apart or fix. The more cynical side of me thinks that we should just let it implode kinda like the financial system has, so that we can start over from the wreckage. There's too many holes to patch and too many broken parts that just aren't fixable.

[hahn]

BTW, for those who keep arguing that this is just like auto insurance and mandatory auto insurance with for profit companies works there, you should read this: Mandatory Health Insurance Is Not Like Mandatory Auto Insurance

[Venusian]

Originally Posted by hahn

Healthcare insurance is fatally flawed idea. It allows physicians to run many expensive tests without hesitation because they don't have to feel guilty about charging the patient (most physicians don't even know what the patients are charged), since the insurance companies are *supposed* to pay for it. They order *everything* even if it's unlikely because they want to cover their asses. Then when insurance companies who don't really have a good idea on a case to case basis of what's a justifiable charge and what isn't get the bill, they deny everything putting the impetus on either the hospital or patient to justify it.

So how would having a public option fix this? Or worse a single payer?

Why wouldn't the doctors still order every test since the govt is footing the bill now?

[Pharoh]

Could anybody give me some information on the health care bill possibly slated to go to the Senate floor, since I haven't read it yet? Will the public option be available to everyone, or only those under a certain economic threshold?

That was my original understanding while the bill was in committee, but I am not sure if it is still true.


By the way, the rationale given for this was because the proponents didn't want to destroy the private health insurance industry. But doesn't this type of system, if true, invalidate the competitive aspects?

[Pharoh]

Originally Posted by Ranger

I hope they at least get the health benefits tax through. The unions not supporting it has made it incredibly easy for me to support it.

But I suppose loopholes will be made just for them.

Do you want to pay such a tax?

[classicman2]

The first vote to watch is the procedural move by Reid - a Motion to Proceed. This will require 60 votes to proceed to the debate on the bill. If he doesn't get it - well, wait until next year.

Even if he does get the 60, he still will need 60 votes for cloture on the debate.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by hahn

Healthcare insurance is fatally flawed idea. It allows physicians to run many expensive tests without hesitation because they don't have to feel guilty about charging the patient (most physicians don't even know what the patients are charged), since the insurance companies are *supposed* to pay for it. They order *everything* even if it's unlikely because they want to cover their asses. Then when insurance companies who don't really have a good idea on a case to case basis of what's a justifiable charge and what isn't get the bill, they deny everything putting the impetus on either the hospital or patient to justify it.

I for one would not want my doctor to skip a test simply because of cost. If his professional opinion deems the test worthwhile, I don't want some guideline prohibiting that test.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by CRM114

I for one would not want my doctor to skip a test simply because of cost. If his professional opinion deems the test worthwhile, I don't want some guideline prohibiting that test.

I agree.

When my surgeon ordered an ultrasound, fearing I might have a blood clot, I most certainly didn't object.

[kvrdave]

And with the government option, you won't have to object. Actually, you won't get the chance to.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by classicman2

I agree.

When my surgeon ordered an ultrasound, fearing I might have a blood clot, I most certainly didn't object.

I think you need to have lived through a serious medical issue to get it.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

And with the government option, you won't have to object. Actually, you won't get the chance to.

Is this an assumption?

[wishbone]

Grayson apologizes for 'whore' remark
By JAKE SHERMAN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 10/27/09 12:21 PM EDT

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has apologized for calling a top adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke a “whore.”

“I offer my sincere apology to Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke,” Grayson said in an emailed statement. “I did not intend to use a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women.”

In the emailed statement, Grayson gave further context to the comment, saying it was made “last month in the context of the debate over whether the Federal Reserve should be independently audited, was inappropriate, and I apologize.”

Grayson's apology is the latest in a string of incendiary statements by the Florida congressman, who in the past month has accused Republicans of wanting people to "die" rather than get better health care and has compared the health care crisis to a "holocaust."

Republicans circulated the audio Monday afternoon of Grayson calling Robertson a “K Street whore.” Todd Jurkowski, Grayson’s spokesperson, initially defended the remark by saying it was in reference to her time as the top lobbyist for Enron. He also pointed to an alternate definition in a dictionary.

“The attack was on her professional career, not her personal life,” Jurkowski wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “The second definition of ‘whore’ in the American Heritage Dictionary is 'A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.’”

Robertson lobbied for Enron, the Clinton Treasury Department and Johns Hopkins University before going to work for Bernanke. Jurkowski said his boss was simply making a point about Robertson’s prior work.

"She had the audacity to attack a congressman who used to be an economist. She's a career lobbyist who used to work for Enron and advocates for whatever she gets paid to promote," Jurkowski said.

It's the second time in recent weeks that a Grayson aide has cited a less-incendiary meaning for a word to try to put out a political fire Grayson lit by using strong language.

In a House floor speech earlier this month, Grayson blamed Republicans for the current state of the health care system, which he referred to as a "holocaust in America."

He was rebuked by the Anti-Defamation League and offered an apology for his remarks, but staff for Grayson, who is Jewish, insisted he was using the small-h "holocaust" rather than the capital-h "Holocaust" that refers to the Nazis’ murder of 6 million Jews.

Several of Grayson's colleagues, including House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) have said his comments about Robertson were uncalled for.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) called them "a bit extreme and rather sexist."

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said Monday night that Grayson is "one fry short of a Happy Meal," but changed his tune a bit after speaking to his Florida colleague about the matter.

"Alan Grayson is a friend and an extraordinary member of Congress. No obviously playful comment from me should distract from the important role Rep. Grayson has played in focusing on the true and tragic costs of our broken health care system," Weiner said in a statement e-mailed to POLITICO. "He is a leader and a patriot."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28786.html



Nice attempt at spin Rep. Grayson and Mr. Jurkowski -- small-h holocaust, alternate whore definition...