Pudge got the facts right, but the headline wrong. They have carefully set up their bills so President 0 can say "we will not take away your current insurance," while their bill will pick off individuals year after year until the private plans are too small to survive.
They are building many exits, one tricky transfer but no entrances.
When people make job changes the government plan grabs them. When young people enter the workforce the government plan grabs them. If you want a plan with better coverage, or whatever, you will have no option but to stay. And eventually a life change will allow the government plan to grab you.
How many people over age 65 are in private plans? None, because Medicare killed off all its "competitors" within five years. There were "allowed to continue," but were shrunk until they could not survive and shut down.
As Pudge says:
And it is, of course, quite possible that these mandates will essentially leave you with little or no choice: all products may end up costing about the same and having about the same benefits. And many, most, or even all private insurers may decide they cannot earn a profit under the government's conditions, and drop out of the individual health insurance market. All of this is possible, and scary.He got the facts right, but let the government takeover team hide behind a narrow technicality. Who is surprised? They have been saying for years that they want single-payer health care.
What do you call something there is a law against you doing? Illegal.
Posted by Ron Hebron at July 18, 2009 10:27 AM | Email ThisRon, that's just not true. Many seniors are in private Medicare Advantage plans. Of course, those plans cost us roughly 14% more for each enrolled person than regular Medicare, so that doesn't say much for the efficiency of private insurance vs. government plans.
And, of course, there are millions of seniors who buy Medicare supplement plans from private insurers.
Still, if you think seniors would appreciate eliminating Medicare so they can buy all of their coverage from private insurers, then I think you should encourage the Republican party to run on that platform. Democrats could use a few more seats in Congress.
Posted by: scottd on July 18, 2009 10:59 AMI don't mind disagreement, though I don't think I let anyone hide. The quote you used from me certainly does not help that "attack team" or let them get away with anything. Maybe you think I "buried the lead" -- though my point was just to get the facts straight, so in my opinion, I did not -- but I didn't let anyone off, in my view.
But aside from my slight disagreement with that characterization, I don't mind what you wrote here; to the contrary, I think it is absoultely worth highlighting as you have done. This is a terrible provision and I am adamantly against it.
I was simply noting it did not do what many had been saying it did. Few things gripe me more than misrepresentations of bills and policies, because it prevents honest and intelligent debate, and so when it happens, I try to correct the record. And if that gets in the way of hammering home that this IS a bad bill that should be defeated, well, blame the people who were misrepresenting it in the first place. :-)
If what you say is true, and that is maintained under the new AAHCA (I'm only about 300 pages into it so far), then Medicare recipients will have MUCH better portability and choice than anyone under 65 - we're locked into what we have now, or the Government plan. No choice.
And IIRC about section 101, there is no exclusion for Medicare Advantage plans. Meaning that the restrictions on the choice of plans (your current plan, or the Government plan) will apply to Medicare as well.
Either case, if you're under 65, you're screwed. If you're 65 or older, you may be able to delay the forced switch, but that's the best you can hope for - your current plan is OK and you stick with it or you go to Medicare. Nothing in between.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 18, 2009 03:42 PMIt’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
(http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption) (http://www.actblue.com/page/healthcareheroes)
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
Posted by: jacksmith on July 18, 2009 04:36 PMUnder the National Health Care plan, the only thing that would make sure it works is that there is enough money for the doctors to be covered, enough doctors to cover 300,000,000+ people in the United States, and enough money that the government can provide.
The sad truth is, we don't have it. What they plan is cutting down the Doctors pay, and rationing what care is given (when one can have Cancer Treatment, if one is even allowed). Even in Canada, there are private individual options. That is not an option for individuals one year AFTER this legislation passes.
This may be a battle of good vs evil, but denying the freedom of choice for Americans is the WORST of evils. This is socialism. My latest post gives my own personal slant on this.
Posted by: Andy on July 18, 2009 06:01 PMUnder the National Health Care plan, the only thing that would make sure it works is that there is enough money for the doctors to be covered, enough doctors to cover 300,000,000+ people in the United States, and enough money that the government can provide.
The sad truth is, we don't have it. What they plan is cutting down the Doctors pay, and rationing what care is given (when one can have Cancer Treatment, if one is even allowed). Even in Canada, there are private individual options. That is not an option for individuals one year AFTER this legislation passes.
This may be a battle of good vs evil, but denying the freedom of choice for Americans is the WORST of evils. This is socialism. My latest post gives my own personal slant on this.
Posted by: Andy on July 18, 2009 06:02 PMReally, what's happened here is that you're confusing the public plan with the health care exchange.
When people make job changes the government plan grabs them.
What are you talking about? The "government plan" is a marketplace which houses mostly private insurance plans.
When young people enter the workforce the government plan grabs them.
Look at the title of your own post. "INDIVIDUAL" not "GROUP." The group market, i.e. most companies, is not affected by any of this. (It should be, so we can all choose our own insurance company, but that's neither here nor there. You're claiming to be informed about the bill, while you are not.)
If you want a plan with better coverage, or whatever, you will have no option but to stay.
It is a marketplace with many insurance companies.
Pudge was right to correct the record on this, and you are wrong to correct him. You don't know the what a health care exchange is, apparently, and really should educate yourself outside of right-wing blogs.
Crusader, However most health gains are from education on preventive care.
Evidence?
Posted by: John Jensen on July 18, 2009 07:57 PM-George Washington
Posted by: 1773 on July 18, 2009 08:34 PMWhy is Pres BO trying to ramrod it through Congress like Bush ramrodded invading Iraq by declaring WMD's when it was later shown that this could not be proven. Same story here with Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade ? It's about a legacy and political gain, never mind screwing the public. This is being done in the name of power grab by the left - which is invariably favored by Big Government.
There is no other reason to ramrod a bill of this magnitude through Congress at the peril of the people, especially small businesses ! when those who are doing the dirty deed will not use the Health Care system themselves. The biggest attempt at an Obamination yet.
Quickly passing this farcical legislation is the only way it will get done, whereas taking time will cause compromise, but less of a political victory. Where is the public outrage ?
Posted by: KDS on July 18, 2009 10:27 PMName for me ONE health insurance plan that qualifies for the Government "marketplace". Just one.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 18, 2009 10:28 PMBut there's no doubt that when those qualifications are set, SOME private plans will be on it, either because they already qualify or because they are modified or created to qualify. The administration would not be so stupid as to make an Exchange with only one plan on it ... not at first, anyway. It will be gradual, like everything is.
Jensen: I didn't think Ron was making the point that the only plan available accepting new clients would be the government plan. If he is making that point, then you're right: he is incorrect. I thought he was saying, however, that this bill would eventually lead to a situation where there would be only the government plan, which is certainly a reasonable prediction/opinion. But the fact is that private, individual plans will be able to legally accept new clients under that legislation: with the big caveat that the plans must fit whatever qualifications the Owellianly named "Health Choices Commissioner" devises.
BTW Ron, jacksmith is just spamming, and not actually making an argument.
I don't have a big problem with gov't setting standards, only with them administering the system. Even a gov't chartered (non-profit) clearing house for insurance to give us a centralized administrative structure would endurable, and might save money.
But damn, the system this democrat congress has devised is insane! Only the dems could come up with a monstrosity that makes it twice as expensive to get half.
I can only imagine what Chrysler and GM will be offering next year!
Posted by: deadwood on July 19, 2009 08:01 AMWell, now he's making claims about the bill and how it will NOT restrict choice. So it's a fair question. He's making the claim about the bill as it now exists. So it's time for him to put up or shut up.
He claims that choice won't be restricted; that no health insurance plans will be outlawed. Well, if that's the case, then can he tell me which plan will be in the Government marketplace?
It's a completely fair question, pudge. He wants to set the rules about the debate, well, now he has to live by them.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 19, 2009 08:35 AMThe insurers do not welcome the elderly, I understand.
Insurance companies welcome them for life, casualty, property, and every other type of insurance. It's just that in health insurance you simply cannot compete with the Government providing free coverage.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 19, 2009 08:57 AM"Where is the public outrage?"
Whether we find it palatable or not, the public outrage is found in those who desire something to be done by the government to correct a problem of cost increases faster than the pace of inflation for health insurance and ever increasing amounts of uncovered/denied coverage.
The reason the Democrats wish to move so quickly is that they understand that the political time to strike is when the economy is hurting and more people are afraid the situation that has happened to many just might happen to them.
Additionally, the Democratic administration understands that accomplishing something that might reduce the overall cost of health care needs to happen sooner rather than later for the sake of the ballooning federal deficits.
The pity of the current situation for conservative Republicans is twofold.
One, during the time when Republicans controlled the branches of federal government and could have introduced and passed what they chose to address the above mentioned issues, they did nothing of the sort. One could make a strong argument the Republicans made matters worse with the Medicare act of 2003.
Second, the current approach of the Republican leadership to deny the problem and stall the legislation merely means the legislation which will be passed will have very little Republican input, and practically zero Republican votes (9 in the House and 2 to 3 in the Senate).
IF the Democratic legislation appears to have addressed the two afore mentioned problems at all, Democrats will reap the political advantage AND it will make it that much harder for Republicans to modify it.
yeah, I'm a liberal communist b**tard for thinking like this. :-D
And let's not forget, Medicare Advantage plans also take something away. Most of them lock enrollees into PPO networks and require people to go through gatekeepers before accessing specialty care, whereas traditional Medicare uses a fee-for-service model. (And I thought it was only mean ol' gubmint that stood between patients and their doctors or limited choice! In MA plans, we have private insurers filling that role -- which, of course, they also do in most other private health insurance plans.)
Are you saying the seniors aren't smart enough to evaluate it themselves?
Now why would I say that?
But let's not forget my main point: Ron is simply wrong to say that no one over 65 is enrolled in a private plan. Over 10 million seniors are currently enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans. And millions more purchase private Medicare supplement plans.
Nothing in the proposed legislation prevents private insurers from offering competing plans. If they can offer a superior product at a competitive price, then they will have no problem attracting customers.
Try as they might to generate a phony "global crisis" it just ain't working out that way. The only reason the dhimmis are frantically trying to rush this through is because every day the Obamination fatigue gets worse and their window of opportunity to royally screw the American public is slipping away from their grasp.
Republicans, for all their problems, realize that something so fundamental as America's healthcare deserves a go-slow deliberative pace and full disclosure. The dhimmicrats aren't interested because they are criminal con artists.
Don't worry GS - this abortion of a bill will never make it across the finish line...thank God!
If McCain were President, we'd have universal coverage (and jobs) already.
Each month that passes makes me wish I were hearing the words "President McCain" on the tv every day...
Don't worry GS - this abortion of a bill will never make it across the finish line...thank God!
Obama care is NO CARE
Hell no to Socialism, Marxism, and Obama Care
Do everything we can to Kill this massive Government overtake of your helthcare program. It will cause nothing but pure hell on your Medical coverage.
Why are conservatives so worried about giving the people what they want?
Posted by: scottd on July 20, 2009 08:38 AMBecause you want to pay for your desires out of my wallet, and because you demand that we comply with your vision of perfection.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 20, 2009 09:15 AMWhy are conservatives so worried about giving the people what they want?
Conservatives are giving the people what they want:
1. Given a choice between health care reform and a tax hike or no health care reform and no tax hike, 47% would prefer to avoid the tax hike and do without reform. Forty-one percent (41%) take the opposite view.2. The opposition is stronger when asked about a choice between health care reform that would require changing existing health insurance coverage or no health care reform and no change from current coverage. In that case, voters oppose reform by a 54% to 32% margin.
3. Also, by a 50% to 35% margin, Americans oppose the creation of a government insurance company to compete with private insurers.
Seems the American public are opposed to a publicly financed approach and increased taxes. So the question should really be why are liberals so opposed to denying Americans what they want?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 09:21 AMIf private insurers provide a better option, then people will select their plans. Hard to see anything wrong with that.
Posted by: scottd on July 20, 2009 09:31 AMI'm flattered that you ask, but I don't think my opinion regarding a system that's not under consideration really matters.
Posted by: scottd on July 20, 2009 09:55 AMExactly. That's why they're building the Trojan Horse, which you are okay with, because you are not opposed to single-payer anyway. And neither is the President.
Have you read sections 2704 (a and b) of the Kennedy-Dodd bill? It allows the Sec. of HHS to set the profit limits of private insurers. Now, if you had a business, and had the power to set the profits of your competitors, what would you do?
Posted by: Gary on July 20, 2009 09:59 AMThe Trojan horse thing really baffles me. You can characterize the current proposals any way you like. But they are not single-payer. The only way we would get single-payer is if most Americans decided, at some later time, that that is what they wanted. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: scottd on July 20, 2009 10:22 AMFine, show a current poll that has a clear majority of the American public wanting a "public option" for health care.
Talk about cherry picking, you simply ignore polls with conclusions you don't like...
As far as the profit limitations, it also exists in the House bill. Given that both the Senate and House bills call for the Sec HHS to set the profits for the private insurers, it's a pretty good indication that it will make it into whatever final bill is sent to the President (if such an event occurs).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 10:31 AMOkay, so if you oppose section 2704, will you oppose the final bill when it is included?
Posted by: Gary on July 20, 2009 10:35 AMGary: I think provisions for limiting private insurance profits will not be in final legislation because they are unpopular and unnecessary.
Bills change all the time as they work through the process. There are multiple proposals from different committees that need to be merged. Then there are amendments offered during full chamber debate. Then there are conference committees that need to iron out differences between the chambers. I wouldn't be surprised to see the provision you are worried about disappear sometime in that process -- we'll see.
Would I oppose a final bill that included such a provision? I don't know -- I'd have to see what the final bill looks like.
Posted by: scottd on July 20, 2009 10:50 AMFair enough. Absent your own references, the Rasmussen poll showing conclusively the American public does not want a publicly-financed plan stands.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 10:56 AMI thought we were both worried about it...
Anyway, today Obama said that we must pass this RIGHT NOW! It's URGENT! (as with everything else they've jammed down our throat)
Why?
My opinion is that was written for the purpose of ruining private insurers. Why do you think it was written?
Assuming that 2704 has the effect of limiting profits, why do I suppose it was written? I have no way of knowing why the sausage-makers pick any particular ingredient. Could be ineptitude, or maybe some overzealous staffers (or congresspersons) really do have it in for private insurers. My guess is it's a bargaining chip -- but who knows?
Adding a provision to limit insurer profits isn't necessary to promote the broader goals of reform, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is no such provision in a final bill. Other than speculating on what the future may hold, I don't think we have much disagreement on this particular issue.
Posted by: scottd on July 20, 2009 12:07 PMYou cede too much power to them.
"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system,"
-
I agree that it will be very inefficient.
Posted by: G on July 20, 2009 02:17 PMHey, anybody here who has made the claim that this new system won't ration care like to explain this from Edward Kennedy:
"We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days--at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients."
-
So now the reward is to *deny* care. To *deny* visits.
Posted by: Gary on July 20, 2009 03:17 PMI don't have the time to read bills over 1,000 pages in length and decipher things for you. But I tried!
Here's what a "basic" plan is. Here's how essiential benefits are decided. Here's how benefits are modified over years. It is impossible to answer your question for years -- until the a basic plan is outlined by the executive.
However, pudge was wrong in his earlier post. He said the Commissioner would decided which plans get in. Not true. The Commission will decide what plan level means what (so that all basic plans cover roughly the same stuff, all premium plans cover roughly the same stuff, etc). Any insurance company can propose a bid that meets these terms, and they will be able to participate in the exchange regardless of premium price. The Commissioner merely verifies that these plans meet the requirements specified.
I support the spirit of the health care exchange, which clearly calls for private and public competition. While I apologize that I cannot predict the future and outline which plans will be available to you, that is not to me a convincing argument that the current individual market functions -- especially when that individual market leaves 48 million people in this country without health care coverage.
Gary, Those of us who are of the opinion that the plan is a Trojan Horse to a single-payer system are arguing with people who *agree* with us, but must refuse to admit it, or else the public will (even more than they are apparently) turn against it.
What you're doing is an ad hominem attack. You are criticizing one's motives rather than the logical arguments they present. Do you have to accuse everyone of lying since you're absent real policy arguments? You're in the awkward position of defending the status quo in health care. I don't blame you for making up excuses for your inability to form constructive arguments.
I do not support the public plan as a trojan horse for single-payer. Even with a successful, strong public plan, I believe there will always be enough people on private plans.
If I were designing a single-payer system in America, I would want to have a very healthy supplementary private market to provide additional coverage that the state cannot afford (you call it rationing). A public plan dominating the market would not provide that, and would not come close to the single-payer system I would envision. So not only do I not believe it's a trojan horse to single-payer, I wouldn't support anything that resembled it. And having 10 million people in the public plan by 2019 (CBO) is not a single-payer takeover.
So now the reward is to *deny* care. To *deny* visits.
No where in that quote is the word "deny." He does say we should prevent unnecessary hospital readmission. How is that controversial? And did you really accuse Ted Kennedy of advocating for the rationing, all while defending the status quo of 48 million uninsured people?
Most health care experts think that the fee-for-service system is broken for Medicare and it is partly responsible for rising entitlement costs. Do you want Medicare spending to explode, or do you want to make the right choices for both our health and our fiscal solvency? Which is it?
By paying for treatment rather than service, you encourage doctors to fix people before discharging them. I don't get why a conservative like yourself is arguing against responsible government spending... Maybe you're more interesting in destroying your partisan enemies than solving our health care problems.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 20, 2009 04:05 PMExactly.
1. Health Exchange - John Jensen was asked to name one private insurance company that would qualify for the Health Exchange. I don't believe John answered it, so I will. Assuming for a moment, since the Exchange hasn't actually been set up, that the exchange follows the FEHB model, then Premera, Group Health, Aetna, and several others here in Washington state would qualify. They are on the FEHB offerrings, they are also on the PEHB (State's version of the FEHB). I am not sure why it is so hard to imagine that private insurance companies wouldn't qualify for the exchange.
2. In an exchange a couple days ago, Shangai Dan mentioned his insurance (LifeWise) as offering insurance under $100. Well, I checked out the link, and while you can find rates under $100, this isn't the true cost of the insurance. The lowest deductible of any of the plans was $1,750 per person (no family deductible). In checking the benefits, the deductible covers even routine doctor's visits (e.g., have to pay deductible first prior to benefits kicking in). Therefore, to compare the true costs, one needs to add in the deductible ($145/mo), also. At this point, it begs the question why even have the insurance, if it isn't going to kick in until you paid out almost $2000). This amount was on the lowest deductible plan, to get the $100 per month plan quoted by Dan, the deductible is much higher. This also doesn't take into account that LifeWise is not recognized by all providers. A plan isn't any good if it doesn't cover your providers. For example, in Seattle (98101), there are no Internal Medicine providers. I didn't check other specialties. Therefore, in countering the arguments here, it isn't enough to take at face value the arguments being made against health care. One needs to dig deeper, providing they know the correct questions to ask.
3. Jim Miller posted an interesting point and I tend to agree with him that one may need to consider rephrasing the discussion to health insurance and not health care, since that is what the "public" versus "private" plan is all about. It isn't about government hiring doctors and specialists, but about who pays the bills. In that light, I do agree that my stand that "essential" health care really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion on who pays. In looking at it from Jim's point, I believe the question is should government be in the insurance business (e.g., actually offering insurance vice regulating insurance). I guess my opinion would be no. However, I don't see government running Health Exchanges as government offering insurance. If one looks at the FEHB for an example, there isn't a government plan on it. The FEHB only coordinates a suite of private offerings for federal employees to choose from, much like what large companies do. I don't see a problem with this. Government isn't competing with private insurance companies.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: tc on July 20, 2009 04:14 PMWould you prefer that all bids are accepted without verification?
tc, excellent comment.
1. This is probably how I should have responded. The thing most similar to the exchange we have no is indeed the FEHB.
2. LifeWise is a joke, and it's pretty ridiculous that Dan offers it is as serious evidence that the individual market is fine.
3. I also see no compelling reason for opposing a health insurance exchange, at all. That's why this blog post is so questionable. It does not define what the "government plan" is: the public insurance plan or the exchange? Does the author of this blog entry even know the difference?
Posted by: John Jensen on July 20, 2009 04:48 PMIt is impossible to answer your question for years -- until the a basic plan is outlined by the executive.
Thank you. So right now claiming that the bills in Congress will not restrict private plans is simply wrong; we don't even know what a qualifying plan is, let alone which private plans meet.
TC and John,
Guess what - LifeWise works for me. It's a low cost plan that meets my needs. Apparently you don't like it - fine, you can pay more. But can you guarantee my plan will be available after the passage of this bill? If not, then my choice is being restricted.
So do you support elimination of choice and forcing people off of plans they currently have?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 06:01 PM"Senior administration officials said Monday that the report on detention (due tomorrow) will be delayed six months and the report on interrogation and transfer policy will be delayed two months."
Um... he said it would close in January, which is six months from now, and yet he won't even have the report on how to do it until then? They said they didn't know how complex it turned out to be.
Right. Just like they didn't know how bad the economy was going to be?
Do they actually know anything? And now there are people who trust them with the nation's health care system and the planet's climate?
And the mid-July economic numbers are being delayed until mid-August?
C'mon folks. He has never run anything in his life. Why would you trust him with the nation's health care system?
Posted by: Gary on July 20, 2009 06:10 PMDan, So right now claiming that the bills in Congress will not restrict private plans is simply wrong
Strawman.
The claim in this thread is that private insurance would be illegal. There is no evidence of this claim, and there is in fact an entire infrastructure in this bill for private insurance entering into the health care exchange using an open bid process. Any insurance company that can provide a bid that matches the "basic plan" requirements -- which are changed annually -- will be on the exchange.
Guess what - LifeWise works for me. It's a low cost plan that meets my needs. Apparently you don't like it - fine, you can pay more.
You've often presented your insurance as an example of the successes of the individual market. I'm glad it works for you, and I'm sure you're smart about it, but it's no more indicative of a strong market than sub-prime mortgages were. Obviously your low premiums are a result of much higher personal risk, and probably
So do you support elimination of choice and forcing people off of plans they currently have?
No, and the bill explicitly says that current plans are unaffected by new regulations. "Eliminating" and "forcing" implies that the government will outlaw your plan and terminate your coverage, which is not true.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 20, 2009 06:50 PM"In addition, tens of thousands of seniors and children would lose access to healthcare, local governments would sacrifice billions of dollars in state assistance this year and large numbers of state prisoners would have their sentences scaled back. Welfare checks would go to fewer residents, state workers would be forced to continue to take unpaid days off and new drilling for oil would be permitted off the Santa Barbara coast."
-
And look... drilling off the coast. If they'd only not blocked that *years* ago...
In 2005 Arnold said that California's CO2 emissions would be at 2000 levels by 2010. And yet people *still* believe anything the government tells them.
So, as shown by California, I do not believe that the government is the solution to every problem, especially when it involves ruining a perfectly good system for 90% of the population.
So, what happened to the environment in California? What happened to global warming? They are now going to allow offshore drilling according to this article. And that is good, but what about all of the rhetoric about how bad it's supposed to be?
This is why you should not trust government. What they gave to environmentalists, they have now taken away.
Posted by: Gary on July 20, 2009 07:24 PM-
What about the small ones?
No, and the bill explicitly says that current plans are unaffected by new regulations.
OK, can you quote that section? Because section 101 says that grandfathered plans must be qualified by the commissioner for coverage and rates, and that has yet to be set.
So you cannot make the statement that current plans are unaffected; in fact, the bill explicitly states the opposite that grandfathered plans MUST meet the requirements of the commissioner in order to be allowed.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 07:39 PM[pudge]said the Commissioner would decided which plans get in.
I did not. Please stop lying.
Obviously the bill lets you maintain your current plan. No new folks can join that plan unless it is in the health care exchange, but it does not eliminate your current coverage.
Gary, And it is in the process of taking away health care services from many poor Californians. Now, just think about what will happen to that state when the President's Medicaid expansion hits them.
The California state government is broken. The Federal government is not broken. Never in the history of Medicaid or Medicare or SCHIP has a single enrollee had to drop coverage because of Federal budgetary problems. The fact that we shift the Medicaid burden to states leads to issues like what we're seeing in CA. The good news is that the Meciaid expansion under health reform will be entire federally funded and deficit neutral, according to the budgets passed by both houses.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 20, 2009 09:03 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=1&hp
You said:
"The Federal government is not broken. "
How would you know? Obama refuses to release the mid-July economic numbers.
Posted by: Gary on July 20, 2009 09:10 PMThis is expressly not true. The health benefits advisory committee -- consisting of 18 public/private health care experts would recommend a set of benefits. The HHS secretary would certify these benefits. We all believe in a unitary executive, so our President would basically choose to accept these recommendations or not. In no way is the Health Choices Commissioner involved in this process.
What the Commissioner does is certify that bids meet the set of benefits -- he cannot deny plans that meet this set of benefits. The Commissioner is appointed by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. He is hardly a scary figure there to deny choice.
You were expressly wrong about the Commissioner's role. Perhaps you'd have learned about this earlier if you didn't feel the need to censor those who vigorously disagree with you.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 20, 2009 09:31 PMI meant section 102. See subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) where any changes in premiums must be approved by the commissioner. Those levels are not yet defined, meaning that no existing plan can adjust for any annual cost right now. The commissioner must approve rates and coverage.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 10:37 PMWhat the Commissioner does is certify that bids meet the set of benefits -- he cannot deny plans that meet this set of benefits. The Commissioner is appointed by the President and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. He is hardly a scary figure there to deny choice.
See section 142 (d)(2)(B):
suspension of enrollment of individuals under such plan after the date the Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur;
And continue to the subsequent paragraphs. The commissioner has the ability to not only monetarily fine plans he deems out of compliance, but to halt all enrollments in such plans. No need to talk to a committee.
I'd suggest reading Title 1 subtitle E - the commissioner has literally the power of life or death over all health plans. No accountability to a committee exists for this position.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2009 10:47 PMIn the case that the Commissioner determines that a [Qualified Health Benefit Plan] offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may, in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2)
"They are already anticipating large gaps in Medicaid financing after 2010, when stimulus money dries up. And they pointed out that Medicaid already suffered from low payment rates to health care providers, discouraging some doctors and hospitals from accepting beneficiaries. If Medicaid is expanded, states will almost surely have to increase payments to doctors to encourage more of them to participate.
Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said he feared Congress was about to bestow "the mother of all unfunded mandates." "
-
I know, I know, it's a "work in progress".
What's the difference, besides the feds being able to print money and make it worthless?
Where is the report, John? Where is the transparency? He is demanding that Congress "stop talking" and "get it done" and that it's
"urgent". Sounds just like the Stimulus debacle.
"On April 20, President Obama challenged his Cabinet to cut $100 million in spending over the next 90 days. The deadline came -- and went -- without a report from the White House on whether or not that promise was fulfilled."
-
They had three months to find a measly $100 million in cuts, and *failed*.
But don't worry, they can run the nation's health care system easy. They can't run their own senate cafeteria (had to contract that out because it was always in the red) but they can manage the nation's health care system.
It's fairly apparent that it would take a Republican administration that he could blame to convince him...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 21, 2009 07:20 AMWho determines if a plan is in violation of the bill? See section 142(d)(1) - it's the Commissioner, and the Commissioner alone.
That individual is judge, jury, and executioner all wrapped up into one.
And look at section 143 - the Commissioner has no responsibility to deal with or accountability to the health benefits advisory committee.
And that committee? the Sec HHS doesn't rubber-stamp them as you imply; the Sec HHS can simply reject what they recommend and establish the standards independently. See section 124 (a)(3).
This bill give near-unlimited power to the Sec HHS to determine what benefits will be available to you (the advisory committee - already packed with 2/3rds of the President's direct picks - has no power and can be completely ignored).
And it gives unlimited power to the Commissioner to solely determine compliance/non-compliance of all plans and the power to determine penalties and carry out those penalties without delay or Court of Law.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 21, 2009 07:33 AM"You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
And yet yesterday he said:
"The time for talk is through."
By all means, let's just pass this big, stinking pile without knowing what's in it. Anybody see a pattern here? Regardless of where you stand on the issue, is this really the way you want our government to operate?
From the EXACT ARTICLE YOU ARE LINKING:
In addition, he said, some versions of the legislation, including the House bill, could slightly reduce state spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next 10 years.---
In the House bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover all nonelderly people with incomes at or below 133 percent of the poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. The federal government would pay all the costs for those who were newly eligible. Medicaid would also cover newborns, for up to 60 days after birth, if they did not have insurance from other sources.
Dan, all of this does nothing to mask the fact that pudge was incorrect in his description of that position, which was my original point. I'll indulge your change of topic.
Who determines if a plan is in violation of the bill? See section 142(d)(1) - it's the Commissioner, and the Commissioner alone.
If he is saying that plans break the law when they do not, then he himself is breaking the law. A court would overturn or stay his decision. He would be fired. The public can elect a new President. Congress can impeach. Congress can change the law.
There are numerous checks on him and the administration.
the Sec HHS can simply reject what they recommend and establish the standards independently
For the very first year ("INITIAL"), so there is a benefit plan at the beginning. I'd prefer everything go through committee, but we are getting down to very small nuts and bolts and clearly I'm not going to agree with the precise language of every bill. The spirit of the law is clearly that a committee decides these benefit plans. If the Sec HHS routinely vetoes their plans arbitrarily, then Congress should step in and change the law. I see no evidence that will happen, and we should have a democratic check on the committee. (An unelected committee is less democratic than an appointed and confirmed member of the unitary executive.)
I'm not sure what the problem is? The Sec HHS represents the administration. The President is an elected figure. These powers are not unlimited and their use is subject to elections.
has no power and can be completely ignored
Sure, but that isn't the spirit of the law. The media will not ignore these recommendations.
And it gives unlimited power to the Commissioner to solely determine compliance/non-compliance of all plans and the power to determine penalties and carry out those penalties without delay or Court of Law.
That is completely false. Any executive interpretation of the law can be appealed to the courts. This right does not need to be made explicit in the bills language, it is fundamental to due process.
It does not give unlimited power to the Commissioner. It gives them the ability to enforce the law. You seem to not understand that someone needs to decide whether a plan is breaking the law or not. Again, this Commissioner is confirmed by Senate providing an early check.
So who has unlimited power, again? The Health Choices Commissioner or the Secretary of HHS? How can two people have unlimited and unchecked power? (Well, they don't. It's another wingnut scare tactic. Say, where's Obama's birth certificate? Shouldn't the Commissioner be required to submit his birth certificate?)
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 09:48 AMI try to ignore your wingnut bullshit because it is a big distraction -- which of course is your point. I really wish you'd stick to the topic at hand, but I understand that you'll never win on the merits of health care, because you favor the status quo which is failing America. Your arguments are weak, so you try to change the discussion.
But since you've repeated your whining three times now: you need to stop getting news from right-wing blogs. President George W. Bush’s first Mid-Session Budget Review was released on August 22, 2001 while President Bill Clinton’s first Mid-Session Budget Review was released on August 28, 1993. This happens during transition years.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 09:57 AMI pasted directly from the New York Times. I thought you trusted that paper. Would you like some information from the USA Today also saying that states will have to pay more (at least for the state share) of the increased Medicaid expansion?
I didn't make this up, John. Governors are completely freaked out about it, and it crosses party boundaries.
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 10:00 AMYou were intellectually dishonest because the House bill directly contradicts your quotes, as the article clearly states. Are you really surprised that governors want more money sent to their state?
I said that the House bill fully funded new the Medicaid enrollees. I said yes, the article confirmed it, but you still asked if I'm "sure" and presented some silly quote. Yes, I am sure. Yes, the article confirms what I said. Yes, you ignored the facts and the article.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 10:07 AMHow am I being dishonest by pointing out the at the Governor's Conference last weekend, they were expressing great concern over this?
So, do the states have to pick this up after one of either 5 or 10 years?
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 10:40 AMWhich ones are they, and is this a health care bill or an affirmative action bill?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 11:15 AMBut the GOP is to blame to stalling the bill?
This is about as accurate as his claims about the bill itself.
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 11:35 AMWhere does it say that?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 11:45 AM"The Congressional Budget Office projects that 11 million more people would receive coverage through Medicaid under the House bill, and that it would increase federal Medicaid spending by $438 billion over 10 years. Medicaid thus accounts for about 40 percent of the cost and 30 percent of those who gain coverage.
In a draft of the bill in the Senate Finance Committee, the federal government would pick up the extra costs for perhaps five years, but states would eventually have to pay their normal share. "
I saw it elsewhere too. This is why the governors are concerned. Do you agree that there has been concern expressed by governors about Medicaid payments?
Again, John. You think I just make this up out of thin air? I'm not the President.
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 12:16 PMThe CBO does ten year projections and the article is not saying that this Federal spending ends after 10 years. As far as I know, the House bill does not transfer costs to the states at any time in the future.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 12:23 PM"What Congress is now considering is whether to make income alone the determinant of Medicaid coverage. Under the health-reform bill now being considered by the House, all non-elderly people earning at or below 133% of poverty -- about $14,400 for an individual and $29,300 for a family of four -- would be eligible. The House bill would have the Federal Government pick up the entire cost for those newly covered under Medicaid -- $438 billion over 10 years. But a draft proposal by the Senate Finance Committee would have the feds paying the additional cost for only five years, after which the states would have to pick up their typical share of existing Medicaid costs, which averages over 40%."
-
When they write, "But a draft proposal by the Senate Finance Committee would have the feds paying the additional cost for only five years,..."
Meaning, "only five years" as opposed to the House "pick(ing) it up" for 10 years.
Alright, so the governors are worried. They'bve said so. Do you agree that they are worried about this?
I mean, what do I have to do? I've already quoted the Democrat governor of Vermont saying that after 10 years, his state is gonna be on the hook for this.
And it could be as little as 5, if the Senate gets it's way.
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 12:38 PMI want evidence proving claim about the House Medicaid funding ends after 10 years, not poor word choice from TIME. TIME's reporting is ambiguous or simply edited incorrectly. The governor of Vermont was not talking about the House bill.
In fact, other sources completely disagree with your assertion: The House bill would not require state contributions to pay for expanding Medicaid eligibility to 133 percent of the federal poverty level because, the committees correctly note, state budgets are already overwhelmed due to the recession. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/a_win_for_medicaid.html
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 12:54 PMI have to attack this head on. TIME's reporting wasn't edited incorrectly, it's just a confusing group of statements.
TIME says: "$438 billion over 10 years." This is after an emdash. The "10 years" applies only to the cost, nothing else. It does not say "pick(ing) it up for 10 years" or even anything like that. That is heavy editing on your party.
As far as I can tell, it is "only five years" as opposed to "ongoing," and your editing of TIME's already confusing word choice is not going to change that.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 12:59 PMAll that would happen if I *did* read the bill for you is that you'd just say, "It's a work in progress".
So, no.
The CBO budget window is 10 years. It always has been, it always will be.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 01:19 PM"OBAMA: Right now, they're not where they need to be. But I promise you, I just met with the Congressional Budget Office today, so I know exactly what they're saying. And what they're saying is, is that the cost savings that are in those bills right now, some of them may actually work, but they're not enough to offset the additional costs of bringing in 46 million new people to provide."
-
46 million. That number includes illegal aliens.
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 01:21 PM"What Congress is now considering is whether to make income alone the determinant of Medicaid coverage. Under the health-reform bill now being considered by the House, all non-elderly people earning at or below 133% of poverty -- about $14,400 for an individual and $29,300 for a family of four -- would be eligible. The House bill would have the Federal Government pick up the entire cost for those newly covered under Medicaid -- $438 billion over 10 years. But a draft proposal by the Senate Finance Committee would have the feds paying the additional cost for only five years, after which the states would have to pick up their typical share of existing Medicaid costs, which averages over 40%."
Here is the link to the TIME article:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1911856,00.html
Read paragraph #6. For crying out loud, Jensen! Okay, I made it all up! There are no governors expressing any concern whatesoever about the bill.
Geesh.
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 01:27 PM"If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it."
Cool! I was worried that my employer might drop it.
But not anymore!
The House bill would have the Federal Government pick up the entire cost for those newly covered under Medicaid -- EMDASH, FULL STOP, CHANGE OF SUBJECT: $438 billion over 10 years.
The cost is $438 billion over 10 years. Why 10 years? That is what the CBO budgetary timeline. There is nothing in that sentence that indicates that this would be anything but ongoing.
You are simply misreading the quote. When you wrote: opposed to the House "pick(ing) it up" for 10 years you were substantially editing the meaning of TIME's writing. You weren't doing it maliciously, I'm sure, but you were doing it incorrectly.
I never said no governors expressed concern. Please do not misrepresent my views. Governor's interests are bringing money to their state, not reading the language of the House bill which is what we are discussing. The quote you presented from the Vermont governor had nothing to do with the House bill.
The President said he's gonna bring 46 million people into the plan. Who are they? If it makes you feel better, yes I am now changing the subject to this. Please keep up.
Who are they?
Since that number includes illegals, then he is bringing in illegals.
He didn't the bill " will cover illegal aliens". He also didn't specifically say that it would cover Texans.
So what?
And you refuse to say who the "46 million people" are. Though you have acknowledged in the last few weeks that the 46 million number includes illegals, haven't you?
Who do you think he's talking about?
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 02:39 PM"Right now, they're not where they need to be. But I promise you, I just met with the Congressional Budget Office today, so I know exactly what they're saying. And what they're saying is, is that the cost savings that are in those bills right now, some of them may actually work, but they're not enough to offset the additional costs of bringing in 46 million new people to provide."
That is not a lie. He didn't say "37 million Americans". Now, if I'd claimed he'd said that, then it would have been a lie. I'm just quoting the man.
And why not answer my question about $2,500? You answered other questions that were off-topic. WHy not this one?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99J23A02&show_article=1
Posted by: Gary on July 21, 2009 04:30 PMFalse. You obviously didn't read the bill. Don't feel bad, most people don't. The Health Choices Commissioner decides -- among other things -- premium variation categories (age, area, family composition); the standards for nondiscrimination; whether a network has sufficient coverage; the definition of "dependent"; and more.
You're wrong.
You were expressly wrong about the Commissioner's role.
Nope. What you did -- as usual -- was pretend I meant something I didn't mean.
I of course linked directly to the bill in my comment that you're replying to. I notice no such links in your comment.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 04:51 PMOf course, Obama tells us this is the fault of the GOP. Somehow.
Let's focus on the OP for a moment. It repeatedly and falsely claims that the House bill "effectively" makes private plans illegal.
OK, tell me what is the definition of a legal plan? What does a plan have to include in order to qualify?
The Commissioner verifies that bids and plans comply with the law. The committee defines benefit levels, and the Commissioner simply verifies that that bids comply with these benefit levels and the other laws in the bill. Somehow these sections of law are defined as "terms and conditions" but the benefit plan levels are not?
Please see section 124(a)(3). The committee makes some recommendation but they can be completely ignored by the sec HHS. Oops. The committee doesn't 'define' anything.
Oh, and the Commissioner gets the authority to define all health-related terms as they see fit (section 142(e)). If the Commissioner decides to redefine terms, he can. And of course that can cause a grandfathered plan to change their coverage, effectively closing them down (legal contracts are based upon definitions; change the definitions, you will change the meaning of the contract).
And the Commissioner gets to set the plan standards - see section 142(a)(1). Furthermore the Commissioner has the right to execute audits - and charge the plans for the costs of those audits (section 142(a)(2)).
And in section 142(d) you'd see that the Commissioner can assess fines, halt enrollment, and shut down plans without a court order. In other words, the Commissioner can shut a plan down and the plan must appeal to the courts, while operating when shut down.
You're not reading the bill very well, John!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 21, 2009 09:56 PMI have already disproven And the Commissioner gets to set the plan standards, which you're wrong because you ignore the phrase "under this title" -- which states that the committee recommends these standards which are approved by the Sec. HHS (or, for the first year only, can recommend her own).
You seem to think that the Commissioner and the Sec. HHS exist in some unelected plane. Both are confirmed by Senate as a first check, both serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President himself is obviously voted on democratically.
I understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to make someone with legal authority sound evil and scary. Great, that's cute. But in the real world of course people in government need to have power to enforce the law.
And of course that can cause a grandfathered plan to change their coverage, effectively closing them down (legal contracts are based upon definitions; change the definitions, you will change the meaning of the contract).
That is completely false. No one can change a contact after two parties have signed it by changing definitions outside of the matter. You have taken an innocuous section (142(e)) to interpreted that grandfathered plans will be disallowed. The bill explicitly says grandfathered plans are unaffected, and you are basically inventing things to contradict this clear statement. It isn't working.
while operating when shut down.
Completely false. The courts can STAY any executive action. This is not an unchecked power. If the Commissioner is breaking the law then the court can check him, the President can fire him, or Congress can even remove his powers. Do you freak out because Cabinet members have actual authority? I mean, what the hell is your point -- is Obama going to install Dr. Evil in this slot and force us all to accept the consequences?
Say you supported a health care exchange with different benefit packages. What sort of governance and enforcement structure would you use?
Gary, both a strawman and an ad hominem in one post. Keep it up.
For the record, there is no reason to have a health care exchange unless you have competition. If we were going to do single-payer, I would want a different model entirely as I said earlier in this thread. You are justifying your own lack of moral integrity (see: constant changes of subject, lying about Obama's words, lying about Kennedy's words, etc.) by attacking the motives of those who disagree with you. You have my motive wrong.
My motive is clear, and I have said it many times: I want universal coverage for all Americans. That can be (almost) achieved without single-payer or free health care.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 21, 2009 10:54 PMHow is quoting them lying about them?
Democrats *hate* when you quote them. It's very strange.
Anybody placing any credence in 10 year projections by the government (hell they couldn't even project the unemployment rate over a few months this year) is foolish.
There is a reason Obama is not releasing the mid-July economic report, and it isn't because he doesn't want to share good news.
Posted by: Gary on July 22, 2009 08:12 AMI have already disproven "And the Commissioner gets to set the plan standards", which you're wrong
I never said that. It's a strawman you keep setting up.
The FACT is, John, that the committee makes some recommendations but that the Sec HHS can choose to ignore those recommendations and implement their own guidelines which the Commissioner then oversees. The committee has ZERO power or mandated input.
You seem to think that the Commissioner and the Sec. HHS exist in some unelected plane. Both are confirmed by Senate as a first check, both serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President himself is obviously voted on democratically.
Irrrelevant, and something I've never said or stated. You're throwing out lies and distractions to avoid the truth that I have consistently identified.
I understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to make someone with legal authority sound evil and scary.
I am? Please show where that is. What I am doing is showing the granted (if it passes) authority of a single individual within the Administration, and how few checks there are on the use of that power.
But in the real world of course people in government need to have power to enforce the law.
And I have never denied as such. Strawman, once again.
That is completely false. No one can change a contact after two parties have signed it by changing definitions outside of the matter.
Really? You state this as fact; please provide supporting evidence.
Completely false. The courts can STAY any executive action. This is not an unchecked power. If the Commissioner is breaking the law then the court can check him, the President can fire him, or Congress can even remove his powers.
IF the Commissioner is breaking the law. First there must be a finding of fact by the Court, which can take months - if not years - all during which the Commissioner's actions are held in place.
Say you supported a health care exchange with different benefit packages. What sort of governance and enforcement structure would you use?
A lot less than we currently have; in fact, nearly none. I would say that insurance companies can offer whatever they want, and you can buy whatever you want, and the only regulation would be to make sure the insurance companies have the resources to honor the contracts they write. And in the case of a dispute about execution of that contract, to adjudicate via the Courts.
Why should the Government dictate what is a "good" or "bad" contract?
Fundamentally, you and your fellow liberals want to eliminate choice - you want Government to decide for me what are the best allowable options that I can choose from. You believe that Government knows better than me what is best for me. You want my contract regarding my health care to be pre-screened to be suitable to someone who doesn't know me, doesn't know my circumstances, doesn't know my life history, and doesn't know my goals.
And I notice you simply could not refute a single claim I made about the power of the Commissioner. You stated you don't believe they will exert such powers, or could be checked by the Courts. But you never denied that those powers exist within the bill.
Oh, and just to wrap up: the negative American opinion about health care reform drops even further.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 22, 2009 08:40 AMI eagerly await to be called a liar by John for printing this quote as reported by the press.
I thought it wasn't about him...
For THE FIRST YEAR ONLY.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 22, 2009 09:56 AMThat is false. Courts can stay executive action. Like I just said.
A lot less than we currently have; in fact, nearly none. I would say that insurance companies can offer whatever they want, and you can buy whatever you want, and the only regulation would be to make sure the insurance companies have the resources to honor the contracts they write. And in the case of a dispute about execution of that contract, to adjudicate via the Courts.
That is not my question. Maybe I wasn't clear: I said "different benefit packages" -- as in standardized benefit package levels. You need a basic plan, a premium plan, a platinum plan, etc. I understand you don't support this structure -- but say you had to draw up a law to develop these plans and enforce them. I want to hear your ideas specifically on a different governance structure, rather than complaining.
But you never denied that those powers exist within the bill.
Many times you have overstated his power, but I'm tired of looking at the bill and finding your inconsistencies. It's just not interesting.
My point is that powers exist because someone has to enforce the law. You seem not to understand that.
Gary, I eagerly await to be called a liar by John for printing this quote as reported by the press.
No press has ever quoted him saying that.
They quoted Chuck Grassley, recalling a story from an anonymous Democratic House member, recalling what the President said. I have no idea whether he said that or not -- but is that what you think a quote is? It isn't.
Even if it were though, I'm not sure its relevance in this discussion? I just thought I'd educate you on what the word "quote" means. :)
Posted by: John Jensen on July 22, 2009 10:03 AMThanks.
"This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance."
-
How many? How many Americans?
"I have great health insurance and so does every member of Congress,"
-
Well, that's a relief!
For THE FIRST YEAR ONLY.
And what are the requirements for subsequent plan requirements? In fact, there is no requirement for the advisory board to meet ever again, or present recommendations.
The ONLY thing that board does is put together recommendations in the first year that can be completely ignored by Sec HHS. And after that, they do nothing by statute.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 22, 2009 04:57 PMThat is not my question. Maybe I wasn't clear: I said "different benefit packages" -- as in standardized benefit package levels. You need a basic plan, a premium plan, a platinum plan, etc. I understand you don't support this structure -- but say you had to draw up a law to develop these plans and enforce them. I want to hear your ideas specifically on a different governance structure, rather than complaining.
My plan: no levels. I'm not complaining, I am proposing that the governance structure should be eliminated because it will not do the job, it will reduce freedom and choices, and will cost too much money.
That's not complaining, that's not saying "no". That is a valid solution - let private industry work it out.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 22, 2009 05:00 PMMy reading is that they meet annually. At that point, the Sec. HHS can forward their recommendations or keep the status quo.
My plan: no levels. I'm not complaining, I am proposing that the governance structure should be eliminated because it will not do the job, it will reduce freedom and choices, and will cost too much money.
You're dodging my question. I know you prefer no levels, but say you had to draft a bill that had a few different levels of benefits. Or, sure, even a minimum level of benefits. What governance structure do you propose?
Posted by: John Jensen on July 22, 2009 05:19 PMI'm not dodging the question; in our Government you can push a bill that does not have all those levels.
My governance structure? Insurance commissioners in each State who make sure the insurance company has appropriate levels of cash reserves to cover outstanding policies.
That's it. Nothing else needed. Why even compromise towards slavery? I choose freedom, and I choose letting private individuals and companies make their own deals about what is best suited for both parties.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 22, 2009 07:32 PMDidn't you know doctors are stealing our kids' tonsils! I know because the President said so, and he's never, ever wrong.
Posted by: Gary on July 22, 2009 08:16 PMI understand you don't want this power to exist at all. It is not what I'm getting at. (What I'm getting at is that your concerns about the Commissioner are not sincere: you simply oppose the health reform bill, not how it is enforced.)
Posted by: John Jensen on July 22, 2009 09:34 PMKinda like, "I don't know the details of the economy but lets do this $787 billion stimulus anyway. I don't know the health care details, but we have to do it RIGHT NMOW!"
...but the AP even called him a liar when he said the government wouldn't be making any health care decisions. They also suggested that people could lose their current insurance.
Keep an eye on your tonsils!
How would I structure it so that the Commissioner doesn't have such power? I would ELIMINATE THE POSITION. And I would eliminate the advisory board, and any-and-all positions and authorities granted by this bill.
I can't get more clear than that. If you have a problem understanding it, then the issue is with you, not me.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 23, 2009 10:05 AMThing is, you and I don't want the government controlling this stuff to begin with.
I have never understood how the government could mandate what things insurance has to cover. It makes it very hard to shop for one suited to my interests, and makes all policies more expensive, so that the government (again) can create the problem and then come along and "rescue" us.
Posted by: Gary on July 23, 2009 12:20 PMThe problem for you apparently isn't how the law is enforced or how the standards are drafted. Why are you pretending like is it? Why do you have to argue on insincere terms?
You don't want standards. You don't want an exchange. How those standards are determined and how the exchange's laws are enforced is immaterial to you.
Gary, you're completely wrong about my opinions. Do not speak for me again.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 23, 2009 04:38 PMAs opposed to here in the US, where you have for-profit insurnace bureaucrats denying coverage, so that they can maximize profts. Or selling plans that don't cover high expenses. That deliberately make their electronic records incompatible with each other, to prevent "competition".
Posted by: Proteus on July 23, 2009 07:30 PMYou just don't get it. The problem IS that they are creating such "standards" in the first place. The problem IS that they are trying to "enforce" those worthless standards.
The solution is easy - stop the whole process.
The fact you refuse to acknowledge that as an honest position says that you simply cannot accept that people should be responsible for themselves. You think the Government should take care of everybody.
Simply, your position is anti-freedom. It is enslavement. You want to argue if we get a fur-lined or leather-lined collar. Personally, I'd rather avoid the collar altogether.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 23, 2009 08:23 PM