Obama(care) to Grandma who needs pacemaker: Drop Dead
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
luxuryrules
Dedicated LVC Member
You may be misunderstanding what that paragraph is saying. For the purposes of reference:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of such coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."
"This paragraph" is referring to section 102a, which is the written definition of grandfathered health insurance.
The term "such coverage" refers to grandfathered health insurance coverage. It basically is stating that the insurers cannot enroll new individuals into policies that have been grandfathered in (with a few noted exceptions). This does not prevent the insurers from issuing new coverage.
I understand that, but that new coverage is going to be subject to new mandates and regulations in this bill that will drive up the cost of those policies to a point where it is impossible for the vast majority of American's to be able to afford those plans (a problem which will be magnified by other negative economic consequences that will reduce the net purchasing power of all Americans), leaving the only option open to them being the public option.
Government mandates have already driven up insurance costs immensely. As this article points out:
In her "Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," Sally Pipes documents that in 1979, there were only 252 mandate laws in force, but by 2007, there were 1,901. Many of these mandates, she notes – such as those pertaining to massage therapy, breast reduction and hair prosthesis – "are hardly critical components of a good health insurance policy." But they exist, she says, because special interest groups have successfully lobbied state lawmakers to require all policies to cover them.
She provides a sampling of excessive state-mandated treatments that are covered, including: acupuncture, alcoholism treatment, athletic trainers, breast reduction, contraceptives, dieticians, drug abuse treatment, hair prosthesis, home health care, hormone replacement therapy, in vitro fertilization, marriage therapy, massage therapy, nature treatments, pastoral counseling, Port-stain elimination, professional counseling, smoking cessation, speech therapy and varicose vein removal.
When you force every insurance company to cover these things, you're bound to drive up insurance costs. People who wouldn't consider paying for these treatments themselves get them because they're covered, thus increasing demand and prices.
Further unintended consequences of these "compassionate" mandates are that premiums are increased, reducing the ability of young people to procure low-premium catastrophe-only policies and causing other citizens to forgo all coverage. The higher premiums, mostly borne by employers, cause a downward pressure on wages and employment.
She provides a sampling of excessive state-mandated treatments that are covered, including: acupuncture, alcoholism treatment, athletic trainers, breast reduction, contraceptives, dieticians, drug abuse treatment, hair prosthesis, home health care, hormone replacement therapy, in vitro fertilization, marriage therapy, massage therapy, nature treatments, pastoral counseling, Port-stain elimination, professional counseling, smoking cessation, speech therapy and varicose vein removal.
When you force every insurance company to cover these things, you're bound to drive up insurance costs. People who wouldn't consider paying for these treatments themselves get them because they're covered, thus increasing demand and prices.
Further unintended consequences of these "compassionate" mandates are that premiums are increased, reducing the ability of young people to procure low-premium catastrophe-only policies and causing other citizens to forgo all coverage. The higher premiums, mostly borne by employers, cause a downward pressure on wages and employment.
Congress won't get rid of the private insurance all together, otherwise, they would have to be subject to the same health coverage as the rest of us (which they will not do). However, since they are not paying for their coverage (the taxpayers are), they have no concern for the cost of that coverage. So they will enact legislation that will greatly drive up costs (as this bill will).
luxuryrules
Dedicated LVC Member
That is an assumption which forms the basis for the entire rest of your statement. I disagree, because the bill will only ensure that policies sold include certain amounts of coverage for certain things - which health insurers are largely already doing anyways - so the only costs to go up will be the administrative costs that will be involved in generating and keeping the records to show the insurer's plans are in compliance with the bill.
Pennsylvania regulates how much auto insurance I must carry. And yet, it is still massively affordable to me. I think $515 for a year of car insurance is certainly affordable, don't you?
Would you agree that examining and weighing the potential consequences of this bill is something that should be done before the bill is enacted in order to avoid (or at least minimize) irreversible and irreparable harm from the bill (the precautionary principle)?
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
What you really meant to say is that new regulations applied to new policies will drive DOWN the PROFITS to the point where the cost of private insurance will be competitive with the public option. The rest of your argument is debunked by facts I laid out here:
JohnnyBz said:
While your claim that more regulations will lead to higher costs, the facts do not support that. The facts are that the primary driver of increased premiums was NOT the costs of care (premiums went up twice as fast as costs, 120% vs 59%), but PROFITS (profits went up over 7 times faster than costs, 428% vs 59%).
None of what you say makes any economic sense (not that you are informed enough to realize that).
The profit motive actually works to keep prices down. there are a number of factors that are driving up the cost here, but the profit motive works against that.
Only through an ignorance of economics can you even think that the info you provided shows that profits are what are driving prices up..
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Turns out that the swastikas are being brought by people IN FAVOR OF the healthcare bill.
Here's another link showing a Dingell supporter posing as a swastika bearer that Marcus posted a picture of. Nice try, Marcus, but you FAILED.
Guess we'll see you cherrypick something else later. Buh-bye for now!
Sarah Palin's response to Obama:
Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.
The President made light of these concerns. He said:
“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]
The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]
As Lane also points out:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]
Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]
So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:
Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]
Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]
President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.
[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.
Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.
The President made light of these concerns. He said:
“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]
The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]
As Lane also points out:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]
Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]
So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:
Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]
Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]
President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.
[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.
And in Johnny Isakson's response to Obama's claim that he was responsible for the so-called "death panel" language in the bill:
August 11, 2009
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Isakson_rejects_Obama_shout_out_from_town_hall.html
Isakson rejects Obama shout-out from town hall
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), didn't appreciate President Obama's shout-out at the New Hampshire town hall meeting this afternoon.
Obama said that the voluntary end-of-life counseling in one version of the bill had a Republican sponsor — and he mentioned Isakson by name.
And that set off the senator from Georgia.
"Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills, and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct end-of-life counseling," Isakson's office said in a statement.
But Isakson did sponsor a Senate health committee amendment in July, which would allow anyone who participates in a long-term health benefit to receive living will and power of attorney counseling. Isakson offices says the difference with his amendment is that it allows patients to ask for help on these issues instead of incentivizing doctors who take Medicare to provide this counseling.
And Isakson has admitted, in an interview with The Washington Post, that he thought talk of "death panels" was "nuts."
“My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney," Isakson said. "The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.”
August 11, 2009
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Isakson_rejects_Obama_shout_out_from_town_hall.html
Isakson rejects Obama shout-out from town hall
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), didn't appreciate President Obama's shout-out at the New Hampshire town hall meeting this afternoon.
Obama said that the voluntary end-of-life counseling in one version of the bill had a Republican sponsor — and he mentioned Isakson by name.
And that set off the senator from Georgia.
"Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills, and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct end-of-life counseling," Isakson's office said in a statement.
But Isakson did sponsor a Senate health committee amendment in July, which would allow anyone who participates in a long-term health benefit to receive living will and power of attorney counseling. Isakson offices says the difference with his amendment is that it allows patients to ask for help on these issues instead of incentivizing doctors who take Medicare to provide this counseling.
And Isakson has admitted, in an interview with The Washington Post, that he thought talk of "death panels" was "nuts."
“My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney," Isakson said. "The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.”
From your article Cal...
Isakson's bill states that the people on long term heath benefits (medicare) would be allowed to voluntarily ask to receive counseling regarding living wills, but the difference is his bill would NOT reimburse doctors for their time.
The current provision in the Healthcare bill states that the people on long term heath benefits (medicare) would be allowed to voluntarily ask to receive counseling regarding living wills, but the difference is this bill would reimburse doctors for their time.
So, you get down to payment. In one case the government is realizing that the doctor's time is money, and feels that the counseling has a value that needs to be reimbursed. In Isakson's bill the doctor's time has no value.
In both cases the counseling is voluntary.
However, I would imagine that in the Isakson scenario, doctors might not be so willing to spend an hour or so with a patient answering questions. He won't be reimbursed for that time. So, although the government is setting up the correct path for someone to follow, everyone should have living wills, they really aren't helping that get done.
In the healthcare bill situation, here the doctor will be reimbursed for his time, so yes, he might suggest to his patient more readily that they talk about living wills, power of attorney, etc. This is a great thing, it allows the patient to make choices for themselves, at a time and place that isn't stressful or immediate, with some who is knowledgeable and someone they trust.
Living wills empower patients, taking away the power of the government, the doctors, insurance companies, the institutions.
So, according the Isakson, it is better to say 'yep, end of life of counseling should be an option, but we aren't going to pay you anything for talking to your patients about it', then 'end of life counseling is an option, and if your patient wants to have it you will be reimbursed for your expertise.'
At a certain age you'll need a prostate exam. It is voluntary. If the doctor wasn't going to be reimbursed for it, do you think he would be really excited about giving them, or maybe even suggesting that you need them? However, since they get reimbursed for them, they do encourage you to have them, right? You are healthier because of it. It is a good thing that not only he is reimbursed for it, but that he asked you to get one.
At a certain age you should have a living will. It is voluntary. If the doctor isn't going to be reimbursed for counseling you on it, do you think he would be excited about giving them, he may not even suggest you get one. However, under the Healthcare provision, he will get reimbursed for counseling you on your options and how to look into the matter further. You will be in control, and have your wishes carried out if you do this. It is a good thing that not only is he reimbursed for it, but that he suggested the counseling session.
'They' want you to think that just because the doctor is reimbursed for this service that somehow he will be steering his patients down some path the government tells him to. To shut off the lights earlier than necessary. That is the stuff of science fiction and conspiracy...
"Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills, and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct end-of-life counseling," Isakson's office said in a statement.
But Isakson did sponsor a Senate health committee amendment in July, which would allow anyone who participates in a long-term health benefit to receive living will and power of attorney counseling. Isakson offices says the difference with his amendment is that it allows patients to ask for help on these issues instead of incentivizing doctors who take Medicare to provide this counseling.
But Isakson did sponsor a Senate health committee amendment in July, which would allow anyone who participates in a long-term health benefit to receive living will and power of attorney counseling. Isakson offices says the difference with his amendment is that it allows patients to ask for help on these issues instead of incentivizing doctors who take Medicare to provide this counseling.
Isakson's bill states that the people on long term heath benefits (medicare) would be allowed to voluntarily ask to receive counseling regarding living wills, but the difference is his bill would NOT reimburse doctors for their time.
The current provision in the Healthcare bill states that the people on long term heath benefits (medicare) would be allowed to voluntarily ask to receive counseling regarding living wills, but the difference is this bill would reimburse doctors for their time.
So, you get down to payment. In one case the government is realizing that the doctor's time is money, and feels that the counseling has a value that needs to be reimbursed. In Isakson's bill the doctor's time has no value.
In both cases the counseling is voluntary.
However, I would imagine that in the Isakson scenario, doctors might not be so willing to spend an hour or so with a patient answering questions. He won't be reimbursed for that time. So, although the government is setting up the correct path for someone to follow, everyone should have living wills, they really aren't helping that get done.
In the healthcare bill situation, here the doctor will be reimbursed for his time, so yes, he might suggest to his patient more readily that they talk about living wills, power of attorney, etc. This is a great thing, it allows the patient to make choices for themselves, at a time and place that isn't stressful or immediate, with some who is knowledgeable and someone they trust.
Living wills empower patients, taking away the power of the government, the doctors, insurance companies, the institutions.
So, according the Isakson, it is better to say 'yep, end of life of counseling should be an option, but we aren't going to pay you anything for talking to your patients about it', then 'end of life counseling is an option, and if your patient wants to have it you will be reimbursed for your expertise.'
At a certain age you'll need a prostate exam. It is voluntary. If the doctor wasn't going to be reimbursed for it, do you think he would be really excited about giving them, or maybe even suggesting that you need them? However, since they get reimbursed for them, they do encourage you to have them, right? You are healthier because of it. It is a good thing that not only he is reimbursed for it, but that he asked you to get one.
At a certain age you should have a living will. It is voluntary. If the doctor isn't going to be reimbursed for counseling you on it, do you think he would be excited about giving them, he may not even suggest you get one. However, under the Healthcare provision, he will get reimbursed for counseling you on your options and how to look into the matter further. You will be in control, and have your wishes carried out if you do this. It is a good thing that not only is he reimbursed for it, but that he suggested the counseling session.
'They' want you to think that just because the doctor is reimbursed for this service that somehow he will be steering his patients down some path the government tells him to. To shut off the lights earlier than necessary. That is the stuff of science fiction and conspiracy...
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Sounds like someone tightened the purse-strings around that $16+ million Sen Isakson's received from the Health Insurance industry over the years as a suggestion that he needs to distance himself from Obama.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
There you go again, starting in with your personal attacks, already telegraphing your loss in this debate. Considering your confused state of mind, I'm not surprized that it doesn't make sense to you. Am I going to have to get out my crayons and draw you a picture? I never said that PROFIT was driving prices up, nice try.
"Profit Motive" only works to get "Profit" UP. That is done by working to decrease costs and increase income. For the heath insurance industry, that means applying pressure to expendatures to either reduce them or keep them from rising any faster than absolutely necessary, AND increasing premimums. And if they are really sneaky, they can raise premimums faster than their expendatures and guess what? MORE PROFITS! DUH!
COMPETITION is what works to keep prices down.
Your argument is that regulations that have been put on the health insurance/care industry has resulted in increase costs of care (expendatures). OK, costs have gone up 59% from '00 - '07. Fair enough.
BUT, the insurance companies, not wanting to have LOSSES, have jacked up their premimums 120% over the same timeframe. That's more than necessary to cover the increased costs, by a factor of 2x!
AT THE SAME TIME, insurers are decreasing their medical loss ratios (the percent of each premimum dollar spent on actual care). They do this by "rationing" care (YES, they've been doing that for years) and reducing coverage for certain procedures (oh the horror, these fascist insurance companies!). This provides even more margin in their bottom line.
So where does this extra income for the insurers go? Some of it goes for increased overhead to handle the increased volume of claims as population grows, and the rest goes into their pockets as PROFITS to the tune of 428% over the same timeframe premimums have increased 120% while costs have only increased 59%! All the while operating under the "oppressive regulations" you blame on increased costs. Is it any wonder the health insurance industry wants to maintaing the status-quo? Most in the health-care provider industry want reform because they too can see the rip-off the insurance industry is conducting on the consumers.
What part of that can you not understand? Should I get out my crayons? I will if you need me to.
The "profit motive" is the basis for competition.
You don't know weather or not that increase in premiums is necessary to cover increased costs or not. You are comparing two numbers that are not comparable and drawing a conclusion from what, at best, can be called a coincidence with the information given.
Costs of medical procedures have gone up on average 59%. and Costs of premiums have gone up on average 120%. Those are two separate facts. You are assuming a statistically significant correlations when it is at least as likely that there is no correlation. You would have to take the data and run it through a statistical analysis to be able to empirically make the conclusions you are making.
There is the factor of state governments adding mandated coverage of certain procedures in the time frame you mentioned that is going to increase insurance costs on top of any actual increase in the cost of the procedure (which will also increase in costs due to those mandates).
In short, you are jumping to conclusions.
Proof?
If certain frivolous procedure were not mandated by the government, these insurance companies would have the motive to control costs that the do now. Also, if the insurance companies were allowed to compete across state lies instead of being prevented from doing so by the government, this wouldn't be an issue either.
And, what exactly do you mean by "rationing" here? If it is not in the coverage, then it is not being rationed. If it is in the coverage and not being covered then it can be said to be rationed.
Again, you are citing random "facts" and drawing a connection where none has been established to make your conclusion.
Also, do you have any proof of the figures you cite? Links? Specifically the 428% figure.
It is easy to manipulate the numbers to whatever you want them to show, but do they stand up to an objective analysis.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Gee, that's funny, because the message the friends of the health insurance industry has been giving as the primary cause for the increases in health insurance premiums; INCREASED COSTS OF CARE:
I have no idea where that thought entered my head.
This has been the message touted at the top of the insurance industry's lungs as well as their paid GOP "supporters". The problem is, when those types of questions are answered, they never provide actual numbers to back up the claim. The reason why those numbers (120% premium increases vs 59% care cost increases) are not provided is because it would expose the LIE.
Increased premimums, and increased care costs. Two seperate issues, eh Shag? You should be embarrassed.
Can you not follow the links I provided? If you can't do that, I'm not going to waste my time. I even posted the graphs w/ the source noted in the thread I linked to in post #31
As I've already indicated, if you are too lazy to follow the links, I'm not going to waste my time. But since I'm such a NICE guy, I'll post the chart again where the 428% number came from (US Securities and Exchange Commission filings):
Profit does something else that you failed to note.
It provides the motivation to increase efficiency. Efficiency saves money and increases profits.
This is why medicare still hasn't digitized their medical records. Federal inefficiency and the lack of a profit motive.
Can we agree that competition is a positive force that would help keep costs down and increase the number of options available to the consumer?
Can we also agree the federal government is not a particularly "efficient" operation?
So, I ask, would you support a program allowed insurance companies to offer a greater variety of policies, with different kinds of coverage?
Lifting some of the restrictions that would enable consumers to shop all 50 states for their coverage, and not limit it to just the one they lived in
Without getting into policy specifics and legalese, a shifting the entire industry so that it returns to being a product purchased by consumers and not something that individuals are increasingly reliant upon employers for? Something were the individual can buy a term policy and not have to face increased premiums on a year to year basis, regardless their developing health problems.
And that some kind of tort reform is necessary to get the punitive damages under control.
Also, should health care insurance necessarily be for everything, or should it be insurance? Should a policy cover everything, or just protect you from catastrophic expenses? And should the individual have the ability to make that choice?
I've seen auto insurance used as an example in this forum. Auto insurance, particularly collision, doesn't cover maintenance, but it protects your car in the event of catastrophic damage. It doesn't cover oil changes. Should all medical insurance cover check ups, or should it be cheap and available with a high deductible, that would cover you in the event of serious injury or illness.
Quick economics reminder that is ALWAYS ignored. When people don't pay directly for the medical attention they receive, they use more of it. The insurer pays for the doctor visit, but the individual consumes it as though it's free. THIS MEANS PRICES INCREASE, so that the market can accommodate the demand.
If you don't change anything, but simply put a limit on how much can be charged, YOU HAVE SHORTAGES. High demand, low prices equals shortages.
So how does government inefficiency and rationing or price controls reduce the actual price of healthcare without causing shortages?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Looks like Sarah Palin was right - and effective. The House Finance Committee is moving to take out the Death Panel parts of the bill.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
In the face of competition, you'd be correct that profit motive would drive innovation to increase efficiency. But without competition, its much easier, faster and cheaper to keep the same old inefficient systems in place and pass the increase cost of "materials" (in the case of the health insurance industry, "materials" would be the cost of medical care) along to the consumer in the form of increased premimums. And as I've shown, if they can put a "little extra sumthin'-sumthin' " into the increased premimums to line their own pockets, profits climb faster than costs.
I believe the MLR of Medicare/aid are higher than for the private insurance industry (don't have time to find that link right now). So unless you can show me how much less efficient Medicare/aid is than the private insurance industry, I'm not buying your claim. The private insurance /care industry lacks far behind in "digitizing medical records" as well, so there's lots of room for improvement on both sides.
This sounds plausable, but you haven't yet answered my questions pertaining to how this would be better in the other thread we discussed this. The ball on this is in your court.
Gee, that's funny, because the message the friends of the health insurance industry has been giving as the primary cause for the increases in health insurance premiums; INCREASED COSTS OF CARE:
I have no idea where that thought entered my head.
This has been the message touted at the top of the insurance industry's lungs as well as their paid GOP "supporters". The problem is, when those types of questions are answered, they never provide actual numbers to back up the claim. The reason why those numbers (120% premium increases vs 59% care cost increases) are not provided is because it would expose the LIE.
Increased premimums, and increased care costs. Two seperate issues, eh Shag? You should be embarrassed.
Not really.
Apparently unlike you, I actually know a thing or two about statistical analysis. I was commenting on the argument you had made in a previous post. Now you are injecting new information into the picture (from the FAQ link) and acting as if that info was always there when that WAS NOT ORIGINALLY PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT. That is called dishonesty.
The stats you provided still, in know way, support your conclusion. You can keep injecting other tangentially related information and it will not change that.
Unless you can empirically prove a statistically significant correlation you are just spinning your wheels. However, I have no doubt that you don't know what stat to look for to prove that, let alone have any clue how to prove a statistically significant correlation. And considering you petulant, dishonest immature and flat out rude approach in this forum, I am not inclined to help you figure that one out. Good luck.
You apparently don't realize that you are misrepresenting the chart. As you worded it in post #28, that 428% figure was representative of all insurance companies. However, as the chart says, that figure is only indicative of, "10 major health insurance companies". That is a BIG difference.
Also, it doesn't say weather that is gross or net profit. Yet you assume in post #38 that the figure is after all the overhead, etc. is paid for. Basically you are assuming it is net profit. You have any rational basis for that assumption, or are you simply ignorant of basic accounting too?
So rather than set up a government monopoly, why don't we actual REFORM things so that they create greater competition in the private sector?
Why don't you provide me with some evidence that Medicare is even competitive with the private sector.
And afterwards, find me some evidence that the Post Office is as competitive as Fed Ex.
Private sector leading the way-
Walmart working with DELL and software maker eClinicalWorks to launch a bundled electronic health records package for doctors:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44878
You start off this thread talking about the benefit of "real competition" and then you ask me to explain why increasing the amount of "real competition" and competitors would benefit the system?
The broader point is- there are a number of FREE MARKET REFORMS that will genuinely improve the quality of care, improve the affordability, increase the options available to consumers, and NOT limit innovation, without turning this over to the federal government.
And if government run health care is to be implemented, it should be done... first, it should be openly acknowledged and passed in he light of day.
and applied on a MUCH smaller scale. Like in Massachusetts. Or if the people in New Hampshire want to do it, they should put it to vote.
We do have 50 states.
This is a federal constitutional republic. There are 50 little experiments in government here.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
What "new information" are you referring to? The "theory" that increases in insurance premimums were caused by increased care costs? You've made it clear you are shooting from your hip and haven't bothered to read the history of this debate between Cal and I.
Cal first inferred that increases in premimums were caused by increased care costs here in this post (#20 of the "Conyers" thread):
Calabrio said:
I responded to that in post #22 by linking the information showing care costs only increased 59%:
JohnnyB said:
This is not a new ingredient of my argument. Welcome to last week, dude.
You have still once again failed to provide ANY data that supports YOUR claims. I'm waiting. Each post you make that dodges this question only cements your place in the dishonesty hall of fame.
Unless you can empirically prove a statistically significant correlation you are just spinning your wheels. However, I have no doubt that you don't know what stat to look for to prove that, let alone have any clue how to prove a statistically significant correlation. And considering you petulant, dishonest immature and flat out rude approach in this forum, I am not inclined to help you figure that one out. Good luck.
Go ahead genius, "own" me by showing that increase premiums are totally un-related to increase care costs. Again, I'm waiting. If you continue your childish kicking and screaming, I'm not going to waste my time. The ball is in YOUR court.
FIRST: I'm not sure what "post #28" you are referring to. Obviously not this thread, and theres only 23 posts in the Conyers thread.
2ND: How am I "misrepresenting" a chart that clearly states at the top of it "10 major private health insurance companies"?? The chart speaks for itself, pointing that out when I 1st posted it would be redundant. Additionally, in my subsequent post #22 of the Conyer's thread (the post where I first addressed Cal's insinuation that costs were to blame for increased premiums), I re-iterated that fact:
JohnnyBz said:
It may not be an accurate figure for ALL of the insurance industry, but it is a very valid figure that indicates the trend of the industry led by the 10 biggest companies. And your weak attempts to cry "foul" on debate technicalities only exposes your weak arguing position.
3RD: You need to put your glasses on, it says clearly at the top of that chart that the data is NET income. There was no assumption whatsoever on my part. I've attached it again w/ the words NET circled in red so you can't miss it this time.
Your arrogance and repeated intentional mischaracterization that I've mis-represented this data when all the evidence to the contrary was already under your nose speaks volumes about your own intelectualy honesty. I'd say that you are exhibiting "troll"-like behavior.
*owned*
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Quit using that strawman that the proposed health care/insurance reform is a "government monopoly". Its false and dishonest. AGAIN, there are no provisions in the proposed bills that will kill the private insurance sector. Private insurance policies will still be available via the "insurance market" that will level the playing field to keep them honest. And if they are so much more efficient than any government run system, they won't have much competition to worry about.
Here's one study on Medicaid.
And a (somewhat dated) study on Medicare:
And some thoughts as to why it's going bankrupt:
Medicare going digital:
You misunderstood me. Back in this post, I asked:
I agree that competition across state lines should spur efficiency. But I don't see how you could entice the private companies, even if they were competing across state lines, to play ball. They already set up roadblocks limiting your doctor's choices to a limitied number of participants in a local region. You want me to be able to buy insurance from 3 states away and then have to drive there to go to a doctor that is "in-plan"?? Getting 50 little government buracracies to "standardize" rules for interstate insurance trading has got to be much more complictated than allowing the fed to setup this framework. Complication typically leads to inefficiency. Short of some standardization of rules / policy content, I can already see the insurance industry's next excuse for poor efficiency and increased premimums, "Our administration costs have just multiplied by 50 times since we need a 50 seperate departments to deal with each of the other 50 states were allowed to do buisness in." Bull pucky. Sounds great on paper, but like a monster to implement. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE DOING THIS without the heavy hand of centralized federal regulations??
Then get your representatives busy pushing for these and get them into the bill instead of spouting nonsensical lies like "death panels" and "pulling the plug on grandma". We're all ears. How would you propose incentivizing the private industry to implement these "free market reforms"?? If these "free market reforms" are so great, WHY HASN'T THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY IMPLEMENTED THEM ON THEIR OWN??
You're right, the authors of the bill did not include a provision in BOLD FACE, RED PRINT saying that the system is being designed to shift the country to single payer system. Of course not, they wouldn't be that honest.
Do you sincerely believe that this legislation was not written with the intention of gradually shifting the U.S. to a single payer system?
And more importantly, do you support the idea of implementing a single payer system in this country?
Before we go any further, let's clear that up.
See this thread:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=49235
The Pelosi rules in the congress make that virtually impossible.
But you're right, some members (from either or both parties) NEED to at least write the frame work for some free-market reform and release it to the media and the internet.
And no one is going to pull the plug on grandma, they simply won't plug her in.
Because the insurance industry is highly regulated and there's a lot of government intervention. For example, you can't have 50 state competition due to regulation. Tax policy is involved. Tort reform is involved. And mandated coverage is involved too.
It's tiresome to hear big government types constantly blame the market places for coming up with less than perfect solutions in response to BAD REGULATION.
The major problem with health care is associated with the rising costs.
The rising costs are due in large part to the government involvement in the system, lawsuits, and the over utilization of insurance, largely due to the tax structure, which drastically skews all the s&d curves.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Cal, its clear you haven't read this post because I've already addressed and debunked nearly every point you are trying to make here.
JohnnyBz said:
Again, if "government run health care" is so inefficient as you claim, then how is it going to run the private insurance industry out of buisness? Don't tell me that Medicare/aid is so damn inefficient and is a prime example of how poorly the governement runs things then turn around and cry that a public option is "unfair competition". YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. To use your UPS/FedEx argument, how is it that the USPS hasn't run them out of town? The facts do not support this argument you continue to kick around.
JohnnyBz said:
And you still owe me an answer on this.
JohnnyBz said:
JohnnyBz said:
More difficult? Yes. "Virtually impossible"? That's a gross exaggeration. Quit making up excuses for the GOP. This is a very WEAK argument.
JohnnyBz said:
This is the last time I'm going to spell this out for you.
Increased health care expendatures account for less than 1/2 of the increases in premiums charged by the insurance companies. While there is definately room for improvement to reduce care costs, THAT IS ONLY HALF OF THE PROBLEM! Addressing ONLY the cost-of-care half of the equation is a half-assed solution, the other half MUST BE ADDRESSED AS WELL in order to obtain maximum benefit for the taxpayers and consumers. One would think that the only reason the GOP is so opposed to legislation that would keep the private insurance industry honest and would cut into their outragious profits to benefit taxpayers and consumers is because the GOP is in the pocket of the insurance industry.
Oh wait.................
Look Cal, we keep going in circles here, I'm trying really hard to have a debate with you. But you apparently don't care enough to read my posts and links, or don't really believe in the positions you've taken and are just shooting talking points from the hip without doing your research. Either way, I'm about done wasting my time here.
