- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,725
- 4,752
- 280
er........no, I don't agree with you at all. There are lots of things that address the rising costs in the [not yet bills]. You republicants have been sending yourselves off on drag hunts with death panels and rationing and histrionics.........
We want change. The potential benefits have nothing to do with 2010. You had the shrub and the two wars which will cost 5 times more than the healthcare reforms.
And? If somebody is sick and can't pay the premiums government is already on the hook. I have a hard time mustering sympathy for insurance companies. They wrecked the economy.
The deficits will get even bigger if we don't.
Medicaid would be replaced by a public option and will not be run piecemeal.
The transparency is only limited to your ability and willingness to avail yourself of the information you want. The attention these [not yet bills] have received before even being voted out of committee is unusual to say the least.
the Obama administration has sought support for its policies by exploiting partisan tensions, vilifying Republicans and insurance companies, and by implication, the state governments that presently regulate insurance companies, trying to sell the idea that if you question the bills Obama/Dems propose you are opposed to any health reform.
Exploiting partisan tensions? That never happens. >insert sarcasm< Vilifying Republicans? They should be vilified. They haven't addressed one issue without resorting to lying and ridiculous hyperbole. The Republicans ARE opposed to any health reform or insurance reform. It's patently obvious. Now the bill is too long, it's too complicated, it's being rushed. Ya'll are full of it. Regulation of insurance is an oxymoron, Insurance regulates the government. It does what it wants and skims a huge amount off the top. Which was fine when your 401ks were making money and your house went up in value, but now that is not the case. I see no reason to support their malfeasance any longer.
The fact remains that HR 3200, a bill that is ready to go to the House floor as soon as the House reconvenes, will raise the cost of health insurance for everyone who now has it, will raise the federal deficit higher than it would otherwise be according to the CBO and will force the states to face financial ruin or drastically raise taxes or cut back services - there is no provision in any of the bills to replace Medicaid with a public plan.
Health reform has no stronger supporters than private health insurance companies, and the proposed bills are expected to be profit bonanzas for health insurers, whose lobbyists played a major role in crafting all the bills being considered in Congress.
Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall.
The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums.
"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.
Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"
Healthcare insurers get upper hand -- latimes.com
Even as Pelosi was calling the insurance companies villains, insurance company lobbyists were successful in persuading Pelosi and Waxman to preserve the federal exemption for insurance companies servicing ERISA covered health plans, which limits the insurer's liability to consequential damages for wrongfully rejecting claims or denying coverage, and does not allow compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages or wrongful death, over the objections of many liberal Dems in the House.
Furthermore, the Senate bill may actually lower the standard for how much of a patient's medical costs the insurer must cover under a federally approved plan below the standard that now exists for most group plans.
In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76% of policyholders' medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65%, meaning insurers would be required to cover just about two-thirds of patients' healthcare bills. According to a committee aide, the change was being considered so that companies could hold down premiums for the policies.
Most group health plans cover 80% to 90% or more of a policyholder's medical bills, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Industry officials urged that the government set the floor lower so insurers could provide flexible, more affordable plans.
"It is vital that individuals, families and small-business owners have the flexibility to choose an affordable coverage option that best meets their needs," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying shop.
Consumer advocates argue that a lower government minimum might quickly become the industry standard, placing a greater financial burden on patients and their families.
"These are a bad deal for consumers," said J. Robert Hunter, a former Texas insurance commissioner who works with the Consumer Federation of America.
Meanwhile, companies would probably see a benefit by providing less insurance "per premium dollar," Hunter said.
"It would be quite a windfall," said Wendell Potter, a former executive at Cigna insurance company who has become an industry whistle-blower
Healthcare insurers get upper hand -- latimes.com
It is clear that the insurance industry has at least as much influence in Congress as it has with state governments.
Consumer and labor advocates acknowledged the industry's lobbying success.
In the first half of 2009, the health service and HMO sector spent nearly $35 million lobbying Congress, the White House and federal healthcare offices, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
With more than 900 lobbyists, that sector -- whose top spenders are insurance giants UnitedHealth, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna -- was poised to spend more than in 2008, a record lobbying year.
UnitedHealth spent the most, $2.5 million in the first half of 2009, and hired some of Washington's most prominent political players, including Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader who served as an informal health policy advisor to Obama.
"They have beaten us six ways to Sunday," said Gerald Shea of the AFL-CIO. "Any time we want to make a small change to provide cost relief, they find a way to make it more profitable."
So far the bills being considered in Congress will expand health insurance coverage to some, but not all, who are now uninsured, but at a cost of increasing the federal deficit beyond what it would otherwise be, by exposing the states to financial ruin and by forcing everyone who now has health insurance to pay more for it. It is simply not clear that expanding access to health insurance need cost this much, but it is clear the current process will not explore any alternatives.
Those who are still desperate to believe in what Bill Clinton last year called the "fairy tale" the Obama campaign was selling will continue to blindly follow Obama's lead in responding to issues of substance with political slogans and evasion, but those who are issue oriented, as opposed to being party loyalists or committed ideologues, and are interested in achieving sustainable health care reform that will contain costs while expanding coverage will agree that the current process has failed in its mission to look for the best ways to deal with cost and coverage because of pressure to wrap things up before the 2010 campaigns begin and that we need to begin the discussion anew without time constraints and seek solutions that will be best for the nation and not just best for the Democrats.
