Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Insurance Regulations

House

Insurers would no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions or gender.

Premiums could vary by age, but premiums for the oldest customers could not cost more than twice premiums for the youngest.Not a cost control

Children would be able to stay on their parents' insurance until age 27, beginning in 2010.

The bill would end the antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry.

Senate

Insurers would no longer be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions or gender. For children, this new regulation would go into effect immediately. For adults, it would go into effect with the rest of the legislation in 2014.

Premiums could vary by age, but premiums for the oldest customers could not cost more than three times premiums for the youngest.Not a cost control

Children would be able to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26, beginning in 2010.

Insurers would be required to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar received in premiums on providing health care.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...son_12-21.html

[TheMercenary]

On exchanges:

But while House and Senate lawmakers envision the exchanges performing similar functions, there are some key differences.

For example, not everyone will be able to use the exchanges. In both bills, at least at first, only individuals who don't have access to insurance at work and small businesses could buy coverage through the exchanges. But while the House bill might open up the exchanges to more people and larger firms later on, the Senate bill would not.

Another very big difference is that in the House bill, the exchange would be national, set up and run by the federal government. In the Senate bill, each state will have to set up its own exchange, complete with its own state law on the subject.

Liberals tend to support the House's national approach; moderates, the insurance industry and the state insurance commissioners prefer the Senate approach that gives each state responsibility for its own exchange.

Jost worries about the Senate's approach: "It seems to me to be a much more complicated process that has a lot more room for failure and, frankly, I think a lot less accountability," he says. "Because if the state fails to do it, then the federal government is supposed to step in, but I think it's going to be difficult.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=122476051

As I said elsewhere:

He's your typical internet bully....but laughable, because he is so transparent and predictable...and so easy to expose his "facts" and occasionally poke until he has a meltdown.

Here's the sequence that is so easy to expose:

First, you issue a blanket pronouncement of "failed" for any post that challenges your opinion.

When exposed with facts, first you deny the facts....then claim the poster and post still fail because those acts are just partisan talking points.

When it is demonstrated those facts are written into the bill....its time for your dodge and weave...first, but, biut there are loopholes because the Dems are scumbags in the pocket of the lobbyists

Followed by a new post of yours to deflect from the facts because you no longer can defend your position.

When it is pointed out that your latest post does not address the issue, either the name calling starts or a new post with new deflections.

And, finally, your conclusion it is all propaganda.

You are the only here who can predict the future and know for certain that the program as envisioned in the bills are failures.

And you are simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge that other opinions are valid and factually based. I certainly have never asserted the bill is perfect or there is guaranteed success (as opposed to your assertion of guaranteed failure) but IMO, it is clear from the facts in the bills that they address the significant cost and coverage/access issues in meaningful ways. Perfect? Nope.

But then you are the only one here who takes the extreme position that if a solution proposed by the Democrats...whether it is health reform, economic stimulus, etc. ..is not 100% perfect, it is a failure. I hope, for your sake, you dont judge your own life actions by those extremes.

Just look back over the last two pages and you are true to form.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

As I said elsewhere:

He's your typical internet bully....but laughable, because he is so transparent and predictable...and so easy to expose his "facts" and occasionally poke until he has a meltdown.

Here's the sequence that is so easy to expose:

First, you issue a blanket pronouncement of "failed" for any post that challenges your opinion.

When exposed with facts, first you deny the facts....then claim the poster and post still fail because those acts are just partisan talking points.

When it is demonstrated those facts are written into the bill....its time for your dodge and weave...first, but, biut there are loopholes because the Dems are scumbags in the pocket of the lobbyists

Followed by a new post of yours to deflect from the facts because you no longer can defend your position.

When it is pointed out that your latest post does not address the issue, either the name calling starts or a new post with new deflections.

And, finally, your conclusion it is all propaganda.

You are the only here who can predict the future and know for certain that the program as envisioned in the bills are failures.

And you are simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge that other opinions are valid and factually based. I certainly have never asserted the bill is perfect or there is guaranteed success (as opposed to your assertion of guaranteed failure) but IMO, it is clear from the facts in the bills that they address the significant cost and coverage/access issues in meaningful ways. Perfect? Nope.

But then you are the only one here who takes the extreme position that if a solution proposed by the Democrats...whether it is health reform, economic stimulus, etc. ..is not 100% perfect, it is a failure. I hope, for your sake, you dont judge your own life actions by those extremes.

Just look back over the last two pages and you are true to form.

No, what I have said repeatedly is that the Bills before Congress will not fix the problems in healthcare, they will not control costs, they will not prevent the astronomical increases in co-pays and premiums, and the Insurance companies have all been in on co-opting this "reform" to their benifit. All things you have ignored to address or brushed aside with blanket statements which are false. If the Bill does not fix the problems with Healthcare then yes, it is a failure, just like the Stimulus, which was suppose to provide millions of jobs, and it has not. Even Demoncratic members of Congress are beginning to question it's success. Time will tell.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, what I have said repeatedly is that the Bills before Congress will not fix the problems in healthcare, they will not control costs,

The healthcare bill is not a solution to all that. Does not even claim to be. It addresses only some reasons for sky high costs.

But it does address a serious problem. So many Americans without any healthcare. Something approaching 40% of Americans have none. Many are playing games with "it will not happen to me" or "I always pay my bills" myths. If you have a serious illness and no health insurance, you will never pay those bills. Your credit rating destroyed for life.

In children hospitals, I am told the number without health insurance is closer to 60%. Making the kids victims.

Other programs are also necessary to address rising costs. This healthcare bill is only step one.

Now, where are costing rising? Insurance companies have somewhere around a 2% profit margin. Suppliers of medical equipment and big Pharma have double digit profit margins. That George Jr Medicaid plan did not help by keeping drug prices in America 40% higher. Making it a felony for Americans to buy the exact same drug in Canada or Mexico.

To address rising health costs means going after those with extreme profit margins and executives that are some of America's highest paid. We know a direct relationship exists between higher paid executives and less productive companies. This healthcare bill is not intended to address those problems.

Step one - first we must have what Massachusetts has - a health insurance system that is actually working. Step two comes later. Go after the reasons for escalating costs. With intentional political gridlock - we want Obama to fail - we cannot even do step one.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, what I have said repeatedly is that the Bills before Congress will not fix the problems in healthcare, they will not control costs, they will not prevent the astronomical increases in co-pays and premiums....

IMO, the provisions we "discussed" (sic) above will prevent the astronomical increases in co-pays and premiums, not only in the new Exchanges, but in the existing large group market (employer-based) as well.

Neither of us know for certain. Will some company find a way around it? Possibly.,,,and if that happens, it would be addressed.

For you to dismiss my opinion and my understanding the the legislation, which, IMO, is at least equal to, if not far greater than yours, is your typical manner of discourse. Much like you dismissed the recovery program as a failure before it started, despite the fact that it has helped the economy begin to recover and has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

From my perspective, the only failure in discussions here in the political area of the Cellar is your dismissive attitude toward others and your unwillingness to acknowledge that opinions that contradict yours may be valid, particularly those supported with facts.

It is the bully approach to discourse and it has been exposed.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO......Neither of us know for certain.

Every single point and position you have taken against my statements are in-validated by your admission that you have no better idea than I do about what the Bills before Congress will do or how they will affect the future..

For you to dismiss my opinion and my understanding the the legislation, which, IMO, is at least equal to, if not far greater than yours, is your typical manner of discourse.

No, your understanding is with Rose Colored Glasses, those of the Demoncrats that you suck up to, and their Insurance Companies. You are a self admitted policy wanker. A frigging tool of the Demoncrats.

... before it started, despite the fact that it has helped the economy begin to recover and has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

More lies by the Left to Sugar Coat the failure of the Stimulus package and cover up the fact that they failed to provide "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs".

From my perspective, the only failure in discussions here in the political area of the Cellar is your dismissive attitude toward others and your unwillingness to acknowledge that opinions that contradict yours may be valid, particularly those supported with facts.

The only failure here is yours. Your ability to support and defend the failures of the Demoncratic party and your failure to acknowledge that the Majority of the American electorate is about to screw you and your parties very short rise to power out of a whole bunch of jobs. How did that Mass. election work out for ya? See you in Nov....

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Every single point and position you have taken against my statements are in-validated by your admission that you have no better idea than I do about what the Bills before Congress will do or how they will affect the future..

Thank you for further clarifying the difference between us.

I have stated my understanding of the bills and my belief that they will address the issues of coverage/access as well as cost...and frequently cited specific language in the legislation. I have never claimed with certainty that it will 100% successful as envisioned, with no need for further corrections, but IMO, it was the correct approach.

And you have claimed repeatedly and with absolute certainty that it will fail...and with absolutely no evidence to back it up, other than your opinion and the numerous partisan opinions of others with which you flooded the discussion.

Just as you proclaimed the Recovery Act a failure as soon as it was enacted and continue to insist it failed...despite the fact that the evidence has proven you wrong. Has it been 100% successful as envisioned? Nope, no one claimed it has been perfect. Programs of that size and complexity (much like the health reform bills) rarely are perfect when implemented. But certainly it has been moderately successful in creating jobs and helping prevent the economy from a longer or deeper downturn.

Because I understand federal policy, I rarely address complex policy issues in absolutes and understand the subtleties that arise with implementation. You, on the other hand, with no policy experience, are always certain of an outcome, a negative outcome if it is a Democratic policy proposal, that is based solely on your ideology.

Same old tactics.., your insistence that your opinions are better and more informed than anyone else. Wrong!

I have said repeatedly that we should be able to agree to disagree...but you will not or cannot accept that and continue to insist that your projected outcome of failure, based on nothing other than your opinion (and the opinions of like-minded columnists), is the only possible outcome.

And I am not the one who has flooded the discussions with partisan opinion columns and childish pictures.

You should know by now that your bullying tactics wont work on me.

You are a failed bully and you have been outed....perhaps that explains why you are so bitter and angry.

[Spexxvet]

Merc, how about a compromise. We get universal healthcare, and start another war. Happy now?

[Shawnee123]

Cool. Who do we want to attack? What's Canada up to? We'll steal their healthcare.

[Yznhymr]

Originally Posted by tw

So many Americans without any healthcare. Something approaching 40% of Americans have none.

Seriously? Are they all Americans? And, why don't those Americans get off of their asses, get an education, get a job, and then health coverage is a thing of the past? Too many damn lazy ass mother fucking pieces of shit welfare fuck-sticks wont get off of their crack smoking, prostituting asses to actually use their brains for something other than self satisfaction. Fuck them and fuck Obama.

Man, I really should stay off of the 'puter when I'm drinking. That might make a good poll...or not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're full of shit, there's millions of people working full time, that don't get health insurance from/with their job, and can't afford to buy it on their own. My brother is paying well over $400 a month for individual coverage that ain't all that great.

[Yznhymr]

xob - then my statements wouldn't apply to those millions. My sister & her husband are disabled, cannot get work, and...well, you get the gist. They have to get whatever they can off of the government. But, there are many people out there that CAN (or could have at one time) get off of their butts and don't. Those are the leaches I'd just as soon kick to the curb. I wouldn't want the job to discern who was who, so what system is best? Not one I've heard proposed.

Of the approximately 45 million uninsured, 2/3 or 30 million are families with one or more full-time workers:

These are not "damn lazy ass mother fucking pieces of shit welfare fuck-sticks wont get off of their crack smoking, prostituting asses."

They are folks who work for small businesses (or self-employed) that dont offer employer-subsidized insurance and simply cannot afford insurance on the open market at the current rates.

[Yznhymr]

Originally Posted by Redux

Of the approximately 45 million uninsured, 2/3 or 30 million are families with one or more full-time workers:

These are not "damn lazy ass mother fucking pieces of shit welfare fuck-sticks wont get off of their crack smoking, prostituting asses."

They are folks who work for small businesses (or self-employed) that dont offer employer-subsidized insurance and simply cannot afford insurance on the open market at the current rates.

They are? Someone has met face-to-face with everyone one of those people and verified that? No. We are talking statistics now. We know how that goes. We all know that there are people that can only work hourly jobs w/o adequate insurance because they didn't finish school, were incarcerated (ex-felons), etc. Others are elderly who need to meet shortages for poor retirement planning or unfortunate circumstances (ripped off my online fishers/scammers, loss of life savings for spouse's death after long illness, etc.). Obviously there are cases where health care would be best provided for those who cannot provide. There is also the case where people chose to make bad decisions and if they would not have been so selfish/lazy, could have taken care of their situation. I do not want to pay for them. Period. Do I get a choice? No. Because of a bunch pansies electing people into office that…well shouldn’t be there. It's not about what is right and wrong. It's about politics. And our politics suck at best.