Brown def Coakley in Mass

[Balta1701]

How about the government create a simple "pre existing medicare plan" for those who have such conditions. It would probably cost a lot less than 1+Trillion dollars to do that and not affect other people who have no such conditions, since they're probably already paying for these peoples care anyway. And give people who make below a certain amount of money per year a complete tax refund on all moneys used to purchase health insurance, or a percentage thereof. So if you make less than 50k a year and have a family of four, but have to buy your own insurance, the government subsidizes it at the end of the year by refunding a % of the money on a sliding scale depending on what you make, etc. Of course people would rather have insurance through their companies, so it would be a benefit to companies to do it, in order to attract better talent/employees.

 

Whatever the case may be -- this doesn't need to be 2000 pages of nonsense. It CAN be done, and done right, and be 20 pages long and understandable to all. I want them to keep their sneaky s*** OUT of this market, and believe me, that 2000+ page bill is FULL of sneaky s***.

The answer to that is quite simple; it becomes a giant subsidy to the insurance companies and will wind up costing enormous sums of government money. The insurers have already been doing everything they can to dump their high-cost customers off of their rolls...now you've got the government expressing a willingness to take on basically anyone who isn't a profitable insurance purchaser if they meet the standard by which the insurance company can dump them. Over a ten year period, that's a hell of a lot more costly than the subsidy plan the Dems put together, because you've kept the advantage for people to dump them, but done nothing to require the insurers spend any money to cover them.

 

Furthermore, you've basically come up with a brief outline of the exact subsidy plan the Dems were using to help people buy insurance, but you've stated that somehow it will cost less, without a reason, and you've also neglected to provide any funding mechanism to pay for it. The cost of your plan would be multiple trillions of dollars over 10 years.

 

BTW, it's 2000 pages because each page contains less text than this post.

[Y2HH]

The answer to that is quite simple; it becomes a giant subsidy to the insurance companies and will wind up costing enormous sums of government money. The insurers have already been doing everything they can to dump their high-cost customers off of their rolls...now you've got the government expressing a willingness to take on basically anyone who isn't a profitable insurance purchaser if they meet the standard by which the insurance company can dump them. Over a ten year period, that's a hell of a lot more costly than the subsidy plan the Dems put together, because you've kept the advantage for people to dump them, but done nothing to require the insurers spend any money to cover them.

 

Furthermore, you've basically come up with a brief outline of the exact subsidy plan the Dems were using to help people buy insurance, but you've stated that somehow it will cost less, without a reason, and you've also neglected to provide any funding mechanism to pay for it. The cost of your plan would be multiple trillions of dollars over 10 years.

 

BTW, it's 2000 pages because each page contains less text than this post.

 

They were willing to put 1+T of government money up for this, but now you say that it would cost enormous sums of government money? Well no crap...the bill they proposed was going to cost just as much, if not WAY more.

 

This would simply make it a lot LESS. And note I didn't say they should take "anyone". Only people making less than a certain amount of money who can't otherwise afford it, which they do anyway, and only people who are otherwise uninsurable. Let's not act like these people aren't checking into hospitals anyway, despite not having insurance. They are, and the government is already paying for them...so they may as well just legitimize it so they can use more hospitals rather than county hospitals.

 

The funding to pay for it is the 1T+ they already said they'd spend through voodoo means. Use that.

 

And no, this isnt the same.

 

The plan they have now is that ANYONE could have said insurance. Anyone shouldn't qualify for this. Just like "anyone" doesn't qualify for welfare.

 

Regardless, I don't want any of this. Merely stupid suggestions on the level of their own already existing stupid suggestions. I like insurance as it is now. Leave it alone.

 

And in the end, I think it will be left alone. Thank god. This bill is dead...thank god. Now we can move on and they can find other ways to create their money sucking nanny state tailor made for the lazy.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

They were willing to put 1+T of government money up for this, but now you say that it would cost enormous sums of government money.

 

Well, ermm...it's going to do that anyway is my point. This would simply make it a lot LESS.

Not in the least. You've made one key mistake; instead of mandating that insurers pick up part of the tab for the uninsured, you've said not only that the government will pick up the full tab for them, but they'll also pick up the tab for anyone that the insurance companies can find a reason to dump. You've vastly increased the cost to the taxpayers.

[Y2HH]

Not in the least. You've made one key mistake; instead of mandating that insurers pick up part of the tab for the uninsured, you've said not only that the government will pick up the full tab for them, but they'll also pick up the tab for anyone that the insurance companies can find a reason to dump. You've vastly increased the cost to the taxpayers.

 

Yes, and that's how it should be. Also, if the insurance companies did that, they'd lose customers. Just put a simple mandate that they can't drop people who currently have insurance who get sick. Period, and done. Don't see why that's so hard.

 

IBM doesn't pick up part of my f***ing tab because I can't afford a computer. How about if you want to be insured, work hard and get a good job that provides it. Rewarding hard work is what this country was founded on...now we like to reward the lazy. No thanks. I don't want a future like that in this country.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Yes, and that's how it should be. Also, if the insurance companies did that, they'd lose customers. Just put a simple mandate that they can't drop people who currently have insurance who get sick. Period, and done. Don't see why that's so hard.

Because now you've destroyed the private insurance market. Now you've made it a sound financial decision for me to stay 100% uninsured until I get sick. If I get sick, then either the government will have to take me or the private market will have to take me because companies can no longer reject applications for coverage where they have pre-existing conditions.

[Y2HH]

Because now you've destroyed the private insurance market. Now you've made it a sound financial decision for me to stay 100% uninsured until I get sick. If I get sick, then either the government will have to take me or the private market will have to take me because companies can no longer reject applications for coverage where they have pre-existing conditions.

 

Wrong.

 

Not what I said at all.

 

I never said they can't reject pre-existing -- I said if you HAVE INSURANCE ALREADY they can't drop you WHEN you get sick. Two vastly different things.

 

If you don't make less than a certain amount of money, you failed, because in that case the govt isn't required to pick you up. And pre-existing condition means something you've HAD, not something you just got. If you can't prove you've had it, then no sale. It's pretty simple to tell that, too. Like...show us your rejection papers from an insurance company that said you have a pre-existing condition which is why you didn't have insurance. Oh, can't produce it because you waited to get sick...your loss.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Wrong.

 

Not what I said at all.

 

I never said they can't reject pre-existing -- I said if you HAVE INSURANCE ALREADY they can't drop you WHEN you get sick.

 

If you don't make less than a certain amount of money, you failed, because they aren't required to pick you up. And pre-existing condition means something you've HAD, not something you just got. If you can't prove you've had it, then no sale. It's pretty simple to tell that, too. Like...show us your rejection papers from an insurance company that said you have a pre-existing condition which is why you didn't have insurance. Oh, can't produce it because you waited to get sick...your loss.

So, basically, you've argued yourself backwards to the point where your plan requires determination of a person's intentions. If I got cancer, and then went to an insurance company, and they denied me because I had cancer, now I've met your standard for qualifying for the government plan. Either that, or you have to determine why exactly I was uninsured beforehand for both the government and the private markets to reject me, to make sure that you punish the right people. I don't think you realize how untenable this policy is, and you're stumbling backwards onto an individual mandate whether you realize it or not.

[Y2HH]

So, basically, you've argued yourself backwards to the point where your plan requires determination of a person's intentions. If I got cancer, and then went to an insurance company, and they denied me because I had cancer, now I've met your standard for qualifying for the government plan. Either that, or you have to determine why exactly I was uninsured beforehand for both the government and the private markets to reject me, to make sure that you punish the right people. I don't think you realize how untenable this policy is, and you're stumbling backwards onto an individual mandate whether you realize it or not.

 

Right, I'd then like to know why you weren't insured UNTIL you got cancer.

 

But you are right about one thing, I don't have the answers...and you're right, my suggestions are bad, so I retract them ALL...I don't want any changes. I like it how it is now. Thank goodness it gets to stay that way.

 

Problem solved. Change nothing!

 

Want insurance that bad, move to Canada, I hear it's awesome there and they have to bestest system evar.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

But you've already accepted the tenet that having people rejected for health coverage because they got sick is a bad thing. Thus, the problem is not solved. Throw in a heaping vat of 8-10% a year increases in cost such that in 10 years out the system breaks for everyone, and viola.

[Y2HH]

But you've already accepted the tenet that having people rejected for health coverage because they got sick is a bad thing. Thus, the problem is not solved. Throw in a heaping vat of 8-10% a year increases in cost such that in 10 years out the system breaks for everyone, and viola.

 

Can I borrow your DeLorean and get the lotto numbers for the next 10 years? Since you seem to have the exact percentage of increases on health care, you must have one...since it's doom and gloom and the whole system is sure to "break for everyone".

 

Well...um, BS. The system isn't going to break for everyone in 10 years regardless of you knowing it does with your time machine.

 

I thought only the GOP predicated on fear.

 

Because you just tried to use a fear tactic to solidify your argument. Which I did enjoy, by the way. Welcome to the GOP.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Can I borrow your DeLorean and get the lotto numbers for the next 10 years? Since you seem to have the exact percentage of increases on health care, you must have one...since it's doom and gloom and the whole system is sure to "break for everyone".

Actually, this is quite easy, more than a few people put out those numbers, they're recorded every single year. I gave 8% a year and that's actually pretty low. 10% a year has been more typical. If something goes up at 7-12% a year, it's really not that hard to project that it'll continue going up at 8% a year; I'm likely to have underestimated it rather than overestimated it.

 

 

 

Source for raw data

 

[Y2HH]

Actually, this is quite easy, more than a few people put out those numbers, they're recorded every single year. I gave 8% a year and that's actually pretty low. 10% a year has been more typical. If something goes up at 7-12% a year, it's really not that hard to project that it'll continue going up at 8% a year; I'm likely to have underestimated it rather than overestimated it.

 

 

 

Source for raw data

 

And somehow reforming "health insurance" was going to fix that?

 

Again, I feel the need to remind you and everyone else that the hospitals send the bills, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. These increasing costs will CONTINUE to increase, because the costs of the services from the point of service (the doctors/hospitals, etc) are the ones that keep making things more expensive. Acting as if the insurance industry is the sole cause is ridiculous.

 

You can reform health insurance until you're blue in the face, that will NOT stop the bills from going up...up...and up again. And therein lies the problem with this reform. It wasn't healthCARE reform, it was healthINSURANCE reform.

 

And it was doomed to failure from the onset one way or another.

[Balta1701]

Now, again, you may not realize it, but you've just lost the argument and given up. You argued now that it's not the fault of health insurance companies that costs are going up, that the system is fundamentally broken, that there is absolutely nothign we can do to control costs, and we're going to go from spending 17% of our GDP on health care to 25-30% within the next 15 years, as simple extrapolation of current cost growth predicts.

 

You're arguing therefore that cost control is impossible. Therefore, it doesn't matter what we do to fix the system, it's bankrupt no matter what.

 

In that case, it makes perfect sense to just spend the money on this bill and insure another 30 million +, because no matter what we do, we're going to go bankrupt in the end, so therefore, the cost no longer matters. It doesn't matter if the bill is $1 trillion, $500 billion, $200 billion, or $5 trillion. We may as well make sure that we cover as many people as we can, if bankruptcy is the 100% guaranteed end in 10 years regardless of what we do.

[Y2HH]

Now, again, you may not realize it, but you've just lost the argument and given up. You argued now that it's not the fault of health insurance companies that costs are going up, that the system is fundamentally broken, that there is absolutely nothign we can do to control costs, and we're going to go from spending 17% of our GDP on health care to 25-30% within the next 15 years, as simple extrapolation of current cost growth predicts.

 

You're arguing therefore that cost control is impossible. Therefore, it doesn't matter what we do to fix the system, it's bankrupt no matter what.

 

In that case, it makes perfect sense to just spend the money on this bill and insure another 30 million +, because no matter what we do, we're going to go bankrupt in the end, so therefore, the cost no longer matters. It doesn't matter if the bill is $1 trillion, $500 billion, $200 billion, or $5 trillion. We may as well make sure that we cover as many people as we can, if bankruptcy is the 100% guaranteed end in 10 years regardless of what we do.

 

Not at all.

 

I'm saying that if you want to talk reform, stop talking about health insurance reform, when the ENTIRE thing needs to be reformed. I've never argued that it doesn't need to be reformed, I just didn't agree with the reform they proposed, because it wasn't reform on anything but insurance, and would have done nothing to control costs.

 

I haven't lost an argument and given up at all...since it's obvious were talking about two different things here.

 

I was against and REMAIN against the stupid reform they proposed.

 

And I didn't say it's not the fault of the insurance companies, either. I said its not ONLY their fault. I thought when I said, "Acting as if the insurance industry is the sole cause is ridiculous.", would have kind of tipped you off that I wasn't blaming everyone but the insurance industry, because they're involved, but they're not the ONLY factor at all.

 

To clear things up:

 

I'm against the proposed reform.

 

I'm not, however, against reform.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

Because now you've destroyed the private insurance market. Now you've made it a sound financial decision for me to stay 100% uninsured until I get sick. If I get sick, then either the government will have to take me or the private market will have to take me because companies can no longer reject applications for coverage where they have pre-existing conditions.

 

The whole intent of the "public option" was to destroy private insurance and move everyone on to the government roles.

[NorthSideSox72]

The whole intent of the "public option" was to destroy private insurance and move everyone on to the government roles.

Only for a few. More Republicans were talking about it, creating that straw man, than even liberals.

 

[southsider2k5]

The answer to that is quite simple; it becomes a giant subsidy to the insurance companies and will wind up costing enormous sums of government money. The insurers have already been doing everything they can to dump their high-cost customers off of their rolls...now you've got the government expressing a willingness to take on basically anyone who isn't a profitable insurance purchaser if they meet the standard by which the insurance company can dump them. Over a ten year period, that's a hell of a lot more costly than the subsidy plan the Dems put together, because you've kept the advantage for people to dump them, but done nothing to require the insurers spend any money to cover them.

 

Furthermore, you've basically come up with a brief outline of the exact subsidy plan the Dems were using to help people buy insurance, but you've stated that somehow it will cost less, without a reason, and you've also neglected to provide any funding mechanism to pay for it. The cost of your plan would be multiple trillions of dollars over 10 years.

 

BTW, it's 2000 pages because each page contains less text than this post.

 

Again, that is pretty much what was being proposed here. The government was going to pay tons of money to the insurance companies essentially to take on a bunch of people.

[southsider2k5]

Only for a few. More Republicans were talking about it, creating that straw man, than even liberals.

They were going to create a governmental insurance agency that was going to cost less than everything else, and expect everyone to stay in business and not to switch over to it, by instituting fines which were cheaper than the cost of providing regular insurance. That is so completely logical for protecting private business...

[bmags]

My support for the public option was pragmatic. Cost of health insurance needed to have downward pressure, a public option could do this. It would also allow affordable insurance to go along with the mandate. And further, though i dont give a damn if AETNA burns to the ground, most every country that has this type of reform still has private insurance.

 

BUt nonetheless, this bill did a helll of a lot to make more affordable individual insurance, which would make it a hell of a lot easier to start your own business or move from a job without worrying about health care. It also did a lot to cover many americans, and also did as much as it was possible to start controlling costs.

 

But please, continue to bankrupt us, baby boomers, you've proven to be such a forward-looking generation. Thank you soooo much.

[StrangeSox]

The whole intent of the "public option" was to destroy private insurance and move everyone on to the government roles.

 

Amazingly, that doesn't happen in every other country where it's been implemented.

[southsider2k5]

Amazingly, that doesn't happen in every other country where it's been implemented.

 

Two words. Wal-Mart.

[Balta1701]

Two words. Wal-Mart.

So you're saying that private companies like Wal-mart are anti-competitive but semi-public institutions like say, the Swiss Health Care model, are not?

[southsider2k5]

So you're saying that private companies like Wal-mart are anti-competitive but semi-public institutions like say, the Swiss Health Care model, are not?

 

I am saying you can't have it both ways. Everyone screams that Wal-Mart is anti-competitive because they come in and undercut the current set up, but that the Federal Government is just doing us a favor by lowering prices.

[Balta1701]

I am saying you can't have it both ways. Everyone screams that Wal-Mart is anti-competitive because they come in and undercut the current set up, but that the Federal Government is just doing us a favor by lowering prices.

No, we scream that Walmart is anti-competitive because they achieve many of those gains by pushing the law so far that everyone loses. They push labor laws so far that they keep getting fines that are just small enough to not matter, they push their employees onto the public dime for Health Care because their pay is so low, they skirt environmental laws and labor laws by manufacturing everything in China, and they're more than happy to use their lobbyists to protect those arrangements.

[southsider2k5]

No, we scream that Walmart is anti-competitive because they achieve many of those gains by pushing the law so far that everyone loses. They push labor laws so far that they keep getting fines that are just small enough to not matter, they push their employees onto the public dime for Health Care because their pay is so low, they skirt environmental laws and labor laws by manufacturing everything in China, and they're more than happy to use their lobbyists to protect those arrangements.

 

And the federal government is exempt from being sued from much of that stuff. We all know they never push the line when it comes to the general public...