Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

"...the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning and is clearly written to imply that OPM itself is offering those plans directly and thus they're somehow functioning as public options. That, however, is false."

Really? Just 'accidently' fell into that sentence?

I've noticed before that the folks who are dying for the government to take over healthcare battle against all logic, going so far as to refuse to admit an obvious conclusion unless their side specifically admits same.

I've mentioned this before as a liberal technique..."fail to connect the dots...."
It's is the kind of dishonesty contained in a statement such as "well...it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...."

It's called 'sophistry,' and means the intention of deceiving.

Your similarly worded disagreement with the reality of the march toward both a public option and a total takeover of the healthcare system stands out in your statement:

"...the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning..."

It is essential for you to deny that English is a language with which you are comfortable, or else your statement would be met with peals of laugher.


The legislation total a bit over 2800 pages, because the Dependancy Party that passed same wanted total and absolute control, and toward that end used specific language...such as the word 'sponsored.'

It means, in this context:

•A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.

Read more: sponsor: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com


Now only a fool would argue that the legislation encourages private control of the healthcare system....wouldn't you agree?
And the folks who wrote the legislation would only sponsor actions that promote government control....wouldn't you agree?

From the definition above, and the following rhetorical question, it is clear to any who want to see, that this government 'sponsors' plans that move healthcare toward government control, i.e., a 'public option' that engendered such disapproval that they pretended that it had been removed from the bill.....

it hasn't been, merely camoflaged.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

It's a shame that you are so easily led.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

This is bizarre. The word "sponsored" isn't from the ACA, it's from your list. "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..." That word doesn't actually appear anywhere in the section of the law related to the multi-state plans. And the example you use of the word's meaning here is nonsensical in this context.

The implication of your list is that OPM is acting as a public insurer and thus the multi-state plans are somehow public options. Let's be very clear: if you chose a public health insurance option, your insurer wouldn't be Blue Cross, it wouldn't be Anthem, or Aetna or any other insurer--it would be a public insurer, like CMS (or, theoretically I suppose, a body like OPM). If, however, you choose a multi-state plan in an exchange, your insurer will be one of those (or some other) private insurers. That's because they're not public options, they're private options that contract with OPM, just like the myriad of private options available to federal employees through the FEHBP.

It's not clear to me whether you're simply not familiar with what public insurance (and thus, the proposed public option) is, or what private insurance is, or you're just full of shit. It sounds like all the above, with a generous helping of paranoia.

BERN won't stop until our suburbs look more like the ghettos of Calcutta, dude. Remember, having a microwave means you are too rich for social safety nets.

I'm dying to see evidence of this "Basic Principles of Psychology" you have just painted yourself in a corner with. Please, provide evidence that what you speak of is 1. a basic principal of anything and 2. some kind of standard and accepted theory in the realm of psychology.

Which, is pretty laughable since it would be a product of sociology before psychology but.. hey, I don't want to goad you too much before taking a gander at where you are pulling this bullshit from.

You can't make health care less expensive when your kind bitch about any regulation meant to reduce the cost of health care.

Nice dodge, by the way. I see you don't want to address the FACT that a waiting list doesn't imply lack of service like your total disregard for poor people does.

Interesting but not surprising.

Your partisan predictions amount to very little. You'd insist that baby jesus hates Obamacare if it didn't sound so fucking retarded. And, you'd still try it if you thought the suggestion would shit on a liberal.

Unlike you, I can back up what I say.
Read the following and then reconsider who sounds like what...

1. Total federal and state Medicaid spending will skyrocket from 4427 billion in 2010, to $896 billion in 2019. https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthEx...2009to2019.pdf

2. . The office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) predicted that the spending on CLASS will exceed the premiums, and
“Over the longer term, expenditures would exceed premium receipts, and there is a very serious risk that the program would become unsustainable …” https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies...2010-04-22.pdf

3. . With each passing year new taxes will be imposed. As disclosed on the attached chart from the
California Hospital Association:
• 2011: A 2.5% excise tax is imposed on pharmaceuticals. (This is part of the plan to pay for the
reform law.) This cost – which will be in the billions of dollars - will be passed on to health care
providers, primarily hospitals, who already operate with very thin margins, and will be under
great financial pressure to raise their rates to pay for it, with resulting price pressure on health
insurance premiums.
• 2012: That excise tax increases to 3%.
• 2013: A separate 2.9% excise tax on medical devices will begin. The same pass-through will take
place, creating the same pressures on providers and on insurance premiums.
• 2014: An $8 billion fee on health insurance premiums kicks in. Obviously consumers will bear
this tax and their premiums will rise.Because of all these costs, Obamacare is generally unsustainable. Here is one study that addresses that
issue:
Obamacare: The Real Price Tag is a Moving Target | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

4. Shortly after Obamacare was signed into law, AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon, and several other big companies reported to investors- as required, that the law would take quite a bite out of future earnings. They were considering dropping employee health insurance. “…dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.” AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010

a. Makes sense, as the law would penalize the companies $2,000 per employee if they didn’t offer the insurance, as opposed to over $7,000 per worker for a comprehensive package. Former CBO director Holtz-Eakins this may be the start of a 35 million worker avalanche that will move into subsidized coverage, at a cost of over $1 trillion more to the total cost of Obamacare over the next ten years. Opinion: Resetting the 'Obamacare' baseline - Douglas Holtz-Eakin and James C. Capretta - POLITICO.com


I challenge you to find any error in the above!!!


Will you remain an idiot, or will you do some research and think for yourself???

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

Under Section 1334(a), the director of OPM, the agency that runs the federal civil service, is to contract with selected health insurers to offer “multi-State qualified health plans through each Exchange in each State.”

Is this sponsorship, or would you care to elucidate the basis of said 'selection'?


The OPM-sponsored plans must meet the minimum benefits package, the rating and coverage rules as specified elsewhere in Title I, and state licensure and other state health insurance requirements that are “not inconsistent” with PPACA. Otherwise, in contracting with these selected insurers, the director of OPM, with a few qualifications, is to replicate the contractual authority over the multi-state plans that he currently exercises in administering the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) under chapter 89 of Title V of the U.S. Code. Under Section 1334(a)(4) of the new law, it is clear that the director “shall implement this subsection in a manner similar to the manner in which the Director implements the contracting provisions” with carriers in the FEHBP.
Office of Personnel Management and Public Health Insurance Option | The Heritage Foundation

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

That's what I'm asking you, you're the one that introduced the word without any effort to define it. If contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process is what you're talking about, that's fine. But that's certainly not what a public option is.

I believe you know exactly what it is:

The public health insurance option is a proposed government-run health insurance agency which competes with other health insurance companies.Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process ..." This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that I've seen from your side before, from you specifically.

You understand what the selection, and sponsorship entail....total control. Yet you pretend it is other wise....

"Under current law, the director of OPM is authorized to negotiate rates and benefits for health plans, and in the conduct of those negotiations, there are very few limitations on the director’s authority. In disputes with federal employee organizations and unions, federal courts have routinely upheld the director’s discretion in these areas. "
Office of Personnel Management and Public Health Insurance Option | The Heritage Foundation

Total control means the 'public option.'
The PPAPA controls the private insurers in this option right down to marketing of their product, the language used, and every other aspect.

Paranoia? No, but your dissembling is hard to hide.

__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter

Mmhmm. I'm referring to current U.S. law.

Total control of what? I'm curious what you think the FEHBP is. Do you think think it's public insurance? Do you think the interaction of the insurers offering plans in the FEHBP with providers resembles the interaction those providers would have with a public insurer?

If you don't like the concept of contracting with health plans, you're really not going to like states that choose an active purchaser model for their exchange.

Complying with regulations costs money. Thus costs can't go down. When government passes regs that tell insurance companies what they must provide, that adds costs.

Because anyone with a brain can see the fallacy of the statement. If I'm waiting I'm not being serviced, am I.

__________________
It's time for another Ronny in the White House.

I'm more of a " the cost of regulation to prohibit thalidomide babies is just fine" sorta guy, BERN. Sue me.

And, your assumption of brains is about as profound as your standards for a social net, BERN. Microwaves need not apply.


Of course you are being serviced, BERN, just not as quickly as the guy with the aneurism. Maybe you should tip the ambulance driver to let you know that the concept of WAITING usually implies what you are WAITING for.

Insurance companies don't own hospitals. They don't employ doctors or nurses. Common sense tells you have paying the CEO of Cigna 120 million dollars means lot's and lot's of insurance policies are skimmed. Common sense says "adding a layer of cost will increase the overall cost". How can right wingers not understand this? It's so obvious. I mean, come on. Does this really have to be explained? Really?

__________________

Pulaski, Tennessee - The Ku Klux Klan officially disbanded today claiming that the Republican Party has co-opted all of their ideas concerning race, immigration and religion and that there was no longer any need for their existence.

USMB Republicans love to scream "liar". If they could prove facts are lies, they could win every debate. Instead of none. At least their record is "perfect".

Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to be temporary, you know, when we had a surplus.