Tea Party Conservatives/GOP Favor Insurance Companies over People

[RDD_1210]

Anyone who espouses that the US should 'follow' other countries is a fucking moron.

Anyone who thinks we have it all figured out and couldn't learn a better way to do things from others is not using their brain.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I favor 'Free Enterprise'.. Not Government Mandates!

+1 great reply

 

[saveliberty]

Anyone who espouses that the US should 'follow' other countries is a fucking moron.

Anyone who thinks we have it all figured out and couldn't learn a better way to do things from others is not using their brain.

Yes, but I tend to look at systems that could actually function in our environment. We tend to have the most medical advancements in this country. Yet, you suggest others are better.

 

[rdean]

I favor 'Free Enterprise'.. Not Government Mandates!

Code for "Let companies do anything they want".

The market decides.

We should even let them decide "safety regulations". Oh wait, Republicans did that with "voluntary compliance". Hmmm, I wonder how that's working out.?

 

[Christopher]

Tea Party Conservatives/GOP Favor Insurance Companies over People

They use the Language framed by Luntz.

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo
Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy | Environment | The Guardian

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

Luntz's healthcare memo presents "poll-based" advice on how to spin a healthcare solution which favors existing stakeholders like insurance while keeping the government out of healthcare. Luntz highlights "words that work" and "words that don't work".

Acronym Required: Public Health Archives

So please, if you're a Tea Party type, a Conservative or a GOP hack, stop pretending you are not favoring existing stakeholders in the health care debate. Your own wordsmith has issued a handbook on how to frame things to favor Insurance companies. You use his language in your arguments.

You should listen to Obama when he said: “I wouldn’t paint with a broad brush.”

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, gawd forbid we we give up reinventing the wheel.

The one thing I like about Switzerland’s system is that they have attempted to disconnect employer group health care and made them individual private health insurance plans, giving more control by the individual. So why are the Democrats not proposing this?
The mandate the Swiss implemented is what is hurting their costs, though. From the PBS article you provided (bold emphasis added), “the growth” is referring to increased costs:

the growth probably is partially due to the fact that we decided it is compulsory, because when it is compulsory, people change their attitude. They say, 'If it is compulsory, at least I want to get back my money, and so I expend more."

I also like Couchepin who, contrary to Obama, disagrees with a single payer system. Also from your article:

Single payer, yes. ... We rejected it because we think if you have a single payer, which is also the only [party] who makes contracts with ... all the providers, it will be dangerous, because there is too much power in the hands of the health insurance system. We think that if there is competition between the health insurance companies, there will be a certain control among themselves; they will denounce the excesses of the others, ... and also they will try to provide better services, and so you can compare.
On the other side, the Social Democrats who wanted that ... thought that you could [have an] economy of scale if you only had one company. It is true, ... but if you compare with the disadvantages of one provider of health insurance, probably there [are] more benefits to keep the present system with competition. And perhaps we have too many health companies, it's true, but through competition the number will be reduced.

Maybe we should listen to Couchepin on some things. While claiming we should model after Switzerland, I have not seen Democrats, particularly Obama, using the above information when considering our health policies. Have you?

The issue is not about reinventing the wheel, but making a wheel that fits well with the existing mechanics of our health care system. It would not make much sense to place a wheel that was made for a scooter on a dump truck or vice versa. Would it?

 

[Christopher]

Tea Party Conservatives/GOP Favor Insurance Companies over People

They use the Language framed by Luntz.

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo
Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy | Environment | The Guardian

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

Luntz's healthcare memo presents "poll-based" advice on how to spin a healthcare solution which favors existing stakeholders like insurance while keeping the government out of healthcare. Luntz highlights "words that work" and "words that don't work".

Acronym Required: Public Health Archives

So please, if you're a Tea Party type, a Conservative or a GOP hack, stop pretending you are not favoring existing stakeholders in the health care debate. Your own wordsmith has issued a handbook on how to frame things to favor Insurance companies. You use his language in your arguments.

You should listen to Obama when he said: “I wouldn’t paint with a broad brush.”

Seriously, Dante, a red for this post? How did you think I was attacking Obama exactly? Here is where I quoted him: Obama says both sides need to make debate more civil, takes on Tea Parties - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Why didn't you just clarify what I was referring to here in this thread, rather than jumping to conclusions and sending me a private message? Like I said in my message back to you, all I was doing was agreeing with Obama and asking you to try and follow his statement by not using such a broad brush.

 

[JimH52]

The OBAMA HC plan could not serve the private insurance companies any better than it already does.

It FORCES people to buy private HC coverage from private HC companies.

The tea party people are idiots if they cannot understand that.

There you go!

 

[Old Rocks]

Simple facts. We pay more than any other industrial nation in the world, per capita, and still do not cover all of our people.

We have third world life expectancy and infant mortality, yet pay nearly twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other nation.

But everything is just fine with, let the corperations take care of it. Hell, just like the Gulf.

 

[Meister]

Tea Party Conservatives/GOP Favor Insurance Companies over People

They use the Language framed by Luntz.

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo
Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy | Environment | The Guardian

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf

Luntz's healthcare memo presents "poll-based" advice on how to spin a healthcare solution which favors existing stakeholders like insurance while keeping the government out of healthcare. Luntz highlights "words that work" and "words that don't work".

Acronym Required: Public Health Archives

So please, if you're a Tea Party type, a Conservative or a GOP hack, stop pretending you are not favoring existing stakeholders in the health care debate. Your own wordsmith has issued a handbook on how to frame things to favor Insurance companies. You use his language in your arguments.

Do you need to look any farther than empty vessels like MrClose? You'd have a better chance of teaching a dog to drive.

Here is a great interview Bill Moyers did with a former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the United States' largest health insurance companies.

He discusses Luntz's memo

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

Bill Moyers is a real non partisan journalist, huh?
One hack talking about a hack from the opposite side...priceless, bfgrn.

 

[Meister]

Simple facts. We pay more than any other industrial nation in the world, per capita, and still do not cover all of our people.

We have third world life expectancy and infant mortality, yet pay nearly twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other nation.

But everything is just fine with, let the corperations take care of it. Hell, just like the Gulf.

coming from the broken record of roxie.

 

[rdean]

Simple facts. We pay more than any other industrial nation in the world, per capita, and still do not cover all of our people.

We have third world life expectancy and infant mortality, yet pay nearly twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other nation.

But everything is just fine with, let the corperations take care of it. Hell, just like the Gulf.

coming from the broken record of roxie.

So is it or isn't it true?

 

[Meister]

Simple facts. We pay more than any other industrial nation in the world, per capita, and still do not cover all of our people.

We have third world life expectancy and infant mortality, yet pay nearly twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other nation.

But everything is just fine with, let the corperations take care of it. Hell, just like the Gulf.

coming from the broken record of roxie.

So is it or isn't it true?

numbers according to W.H.O.? sorry they have been exposed.

 

[hortysir]

Simple facts. We pay more than any other industrial nation in the world, per capita, and still do not cover all of our people.

We have third world life expectancy and infant mortality, yet pay nearly twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other nation.

But everything is just fine with, let the corperations take care of it. Hell, just like the Gulf.

coming from the broken record of roxie.

So is it or isn't it true?

Isn't



Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com

 

[RDD_1210]

coming from the broken record of roxie.

So is it or isn't it true?

Isn't



Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com

Umm, what does this link prove? Did you actually look at the chart in the link you posted? The U.S. is nowhere near the top in life expectancy or infant mortality rate.

I love that the people who "thanked" you didn't even bother to click the link and look at the data themselves.

Here is even more up to date data for life expectancy which shows the last 5 years from 2005-2010 and is pulled from the CIA and UN websites.
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The U.S. is buried in the 30s in terms of life expectancy which is downright embarrassing for the amount of money we spend on health care.

 

[hortysir]

So is it or isn't it true?

Isn't



Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com

Umm, what does this link prove? Did you actually look at the chart in the link you posted? The U.S. is nowhere near the top in life expectancy or infant mortality rate.

I love that the people who "thanked" you didn't even bother to click the link and look at the data themselves.

Here is even more up to date data for life expectancy which shows the last 5 years from 2005-2010 and is pulled from the CIA and UN websites.
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The U.S. is buried in the 30s in terms of life expectancy which is downright embarrassing for the amount of money we spend on health care.

"Near the top" wasn't your claim.
You compared our life expectancies to "third world" countries.
Are Canada, Spain, Ireland, and Israel 3rd world countries?


If not....

I repeat: Isn't

 

[Meister]

So is it or isn't it true?

Isn't



Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com

Umm, what does this link prove? Did you actually look at the chart in the link you posted? The U.S. is nowhere near the top in life expectancy or infant mortality rate.

I love that the people who "thanked" you didn't even bother to click the link and look at the data themselves.

Here is even more up to date data for life expectancy which shows the last 5 years from 2005-2010 and is pulled from the CIA and UN websites.
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The U.S. is buried in the 30s in terms of life expectancy which is downright embarrassing for the amount of money we spend on health care.

Wiki, and W.H.O are not the hills you want to make your stand on. W.H.O has different reference points as to infant mortality rates, so that is kind of like apples and oranges. UN websites and W.H.O No trusting them as they do have an agenda that seems to be towards socialism.
Our culture does not tend to lead in the highest average life expectancy because of such things as obesity, auto deaths, etc. Our culture is one of consumption and that won't change with any kind of UHC.

 

[Christopher]

So is it or isn't it true?

Isn't



Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2007 — Infoplease.com

The U.S. is buried in the 30s in terms of life expectancy which is downright embarrassing for the amount of money we spend on health care.

Life expectancy in the US is not linked to the health care system. You and many others may want it to be, since it would provide a good reason for drastic health care reform, however, when you look into the reasons behind statistics rather than assuming yourself the reasons for the statistics, it paints a much clearer picture. Read this credible study completed by the University of Pennsylvania, which I have provided several times in this forum: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

Abstract
Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily
because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor
performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

 

[Greenbeard]

The OBAMA HC plan could not serve the private insurance companies any better than it already does.

That's not quite true. Let's review some of the main insurance-related provisions of reform. Insurance companies can no longer:

• Put lifetime or annual limits on coverage
• Rescind coverage
• Kick dependents off insurance policies when they graduate from college
• Charge people differently for the same policy based on things like gender or medical history

Insurance companies must:

• Cover preventive services
• Post medical loss ratios of 80% in the individual market and 85% in the group market--if they don't, they're required to send out rebates to their customers
• Publicly disclose and justify all rate increases--increases deemed to be excessive will result in expulsion from the Exchange
• Obey guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal rules
• Cover pre-existing conditions
• Offer plans that at least meet essential benefits requirements and meet a minimum actuarial value
• Post all prices and plan details on a central website, side-by-side with every other plan in the state exchange

The individual mandate isn't so much a gift to them as a necessary provision to prevent adverse selection from bankrupting them. The mandate's role is functional. At present, health insurers underwrite policies, meaning when someone comes to them for insurance, they decide whether to avoid covering certain pre-existing conditions--or reject the applicant altogether--and they decide whether to charge that person higher premiums than other policyholders. These activities make perfect sense but raise some basic equity concerns. After all, we're not talking about the car of a daredevil driver or a house built on a hurricane-prone coast, we're talking about someone seeking health care for himself or his family. As such, these restrictions levied through the underwriting process are unpopular, despite being a good business model.

The new reforms largely do away with them. The modified community rating provisions of the law limit the ability of insurers to charge people different rates for identical plans (some variations are allowed for things like age, smoking status, geography, etc but within limits) and the guaranteed issue provisions forbid insurers from turning people away for having pre-existing conditions. If health insurers can, for the most part, no longer price for risk, something extra is needed. That something is risk adjustment, in which insurers who get riskier pools get reimbursed for it and insurers who get less risky pools make payments (it works a bit like the NBA's soft salary cap with luxury tax).

But we still have a problem well-known to economists: adverse selection. Setting up these rules and providing subsidies to low-to-middle income people buying insurance on their own--i.e. not getting it through their employer with the associated subsidy for that--creates the potential for a universal system but it runs into the adverse selection problem. Namely, that people who need health insurance immediately are more likely to want it than people who think they're invincible. Now, one of the incentives for buying insurance when you don't currently have any great need for it is that you might eventually need it (despite criticisms that it's used to pay for too many things, health insurance is still insurance) but if you wait until you do need it, you may be rejected by insurers or charged higher premiums. That is, underwriting encourages people not to free ride because it makes it impossible to do so. But we're getting rid of underwriting because it's a barrier to a universal system.

Its replacement is the individual mandate. Without it, the healthy can opt out of buying insurance, secure in their knowledge that if they need it, they won't be rejected (guaranteed issue) and they won't be charged more for a given plan (community rating) than someone who's been diligently paying premiums for years. They may have to wait for an annual open enrollment period to get insurance but as long as they develop a noncritical condition, that won't deter them from waiting (here it simply depends on how risk-averse a given individual is).

Obviously this kind of free-riding is problematic. Indeed, it can lead to what economists call a death spiral, in which premiums rise as healthy individuals leave insurance pools (leaving them disproportionately unhealthy and expensive), pushing more healthy individuals out and sending premiums up further in a vicious cycle. (This, incidentally, is also a very possible outcome when you allow multi-state insurance sales, with only state-level governance structures to police it--i.e. governance smaller than the scale of what it's governing. That's why the new reform law allows insurance to be sold across state lines but requires multi-state governance of the insurance market if that happens.)

So to recap: private systems require underwriting because they're financed by people choosing this or that insurance company, as opposed to universal taxation. At the same time, underwriting is unpopular and stands in opposition to universality. So if we compromise between a universal public system and a non-universal private system to get a universal private system we need an individual mandate to keep insurance markets from blowing up. Note that neither universal public or non-universal private systems require individual mandates.