How Obama uses words to fool people

[MaggieMae]

Why is my question avoided in every single thread? Where will the fucking money come from for all this? I mean, great, so everyone is ensured healthcare, can't argue that it's a nice idea. But seriously, does anyone realize why it hasn't happened yet?

It is hoped that the end result will mean cost savings for all procedures, including the more expensive ones. I keep going back to my own experience. Why should it cost $900 for a full blood workup? Those things are done by rote by a lab technician; it doesn't take an MD degree. Why? Because Medicare paid for it, and the hospital lab charged that much because they could.THAT'S the kind of absurd charge that should be monitored as being outrageously overbilled.

 

[Oldandtired]

And it is what those voices don't want answers to because they think they already know it all. Kinda like you.

Perhaps. But you dont know me.

I am basing it striclty on the little I have had the patience to read, and the few answers the Obama adminsitration and members of congress have offered.



What have I heard?

"it will lower costs"...how? .....it will. Oh.
"it has nothing that imply's death panels"...Really? Then what did you admit to take out? Things people took as death panels. Oh really? Then what was it supposed to mean? Irrelevant. We took it out. Oh.
It will be deficit neutral. Really? How? ....It will. Oh.

So please Maggie...I am all ears....what is in the bill?

Costs are projections based on history and forecasts. This isn't something like building a new airplane where the cost thereof can be determined beforehand and the plane will be built and done with in a year. Those who are demanding specific dollars and cents are just being totally unrealistic. OF COURSE it's going to "cost" something. It would be the largest policy change since Medicare. But if they can figure out how to close some of the existing gaps which are already costly and ineffective, it will help reduce the cost.

The things that were removed were simply to appease people who are determined to find fault anyway with VERY CLEAR language. When in doubt, throw it out. People have and will continue to have a patient's right to discuss end of life decisions with their physicians. But now it will cost them out of pocket. Get it now?

Here's an analysis of the points left on the table when Congress recessed and which will be taken up in the Senate when they return.

The Associated Press: A look at health care plans in Congress

I am not, however, waiting with bated breath for any reform "package" to be enacted, unless there is some sympathy voting over the death of Ted Kennedy who championed this cause for 40 years. The best I can hope for is crackdown on the insurance industry sharks who are, in effect, making all your medical decisions for you within the walls of their glass highrises while you, on the other hand, may lose your modest home due to a catastrophic illness or injury.

Kennedy not being poart of the debate is a shame. His dedication to healthcare reform is unmatched.

How did you know I was a pilot? Or was it striclty a coincidence that you used an airplane as an example.

Do I know you?

 

[KittenKoder]

Why is my question avoided in every single thread? Where will the fucking money come from for all this? I mean, great, so everyone is ensured healthcare, can't argue that it's a nice idea. But seriously, does anyone realize why it hasn't happened yet?

It is hoped that the end result will mean cost savings for all procedures, including the more expensive ones. I keep going back to my own experience. Why should it cost $900 for a full blood workup? Those things are done by rote by a lab technician; it doesn't take an MD degree. Why? Because Medicare paid for it, and the hospital lab charged that much because they could.THAT'S the kind of absurd charge that should be monitored as being outrageously overbilled.

Okay, finally, someone addressing the issue. Now, let's look at it from the financial point of view. Basically with Obama's option you are giving the power to pay to the people who have caused only the most expensive procedures/meds/etc. to be allowed into the US as well as the one that charges these businesses a fortune in filing fees. So, do you believe that his plan will cause any decline in price?

 

[MaggieMae]

Perhaps. But you dont know me.

I am basing it striclty on the little I have had the patience to read, and the few answers the Obama adminsitration and members of congress have offered.



What have I heard?

"it will lower costs"...how? .....it will. Oh.
"it has nothing that imply's death panels"...Really? Then what did you admit to take out? Things people took as death panels. Oh really? Then what was it supposed to mean? Irrelevant. We took it out. Oh.
It will be deficit neutral. Really? How? ....It will. Oh.

So please Maggie...I am all ears....what is in the bill?

Costs are projections based on history and forecasts. This isn't something like building a new airplane where the cost thereof can be determined beforehand and the plane will be built and done with in a year. Those who are demanding specific dollars and cents are just being totally unrealistic. OF COURSE it's going to "cost" something. It would be the largest policy change since Medicare. But if they can figure out how to close some of the existing gaps which are already costly and ineffective, it will help reduce the cost.

The things that were removed were simply to appease people who are determined to find fault anyway with VERY CLEAR language. When in doubt, throw it out. People have and will continue to have a patient's right to discuss end of life decisions with their physicians. But now it will cost them out of pocket. Get it now?

Here's an analysis of the points left on the table when Congress recessed and which will be taken up in the Senate when they return.

The Associated Press: A look at health care plans in Congress

I am not, however, waiting with bated breath for any reform "package" to be enacted, unless there is some sympathy voting over the death of Ted Kennedy who championed this cause for 40 years. The best I can hope for is crackdown on the insurance industry sharks who are, in effect, making all your medical decisions for you within the walls of their glass highrises while you, on the other hand, may lose your modest home due to a catastrophic illness or injury.

Kennedy not being poart of the debate is a shame. His dedication to healthcare reform is unmatched.

How did you know I was a pilot? Or was it striclty a coincidence that you used an airplane as an example.

Do I know you?

I didn't know you were a pilot. I just used the first example that popped into my head! I would never criticize a pilot just for being a pilot.

 

[Oldandtired]

Costs are projections based on history and forecasts. This isn't something like building a new airplane where the cost thereof can be determined beforehand and the plane will be built and done with in a year. Those who are demanding specific dollars and cents are just being totally unrealistic. OF COURSE it's going to "cost" something. It would be the largest policy change since Medicare. But if they can figure out how to close some of the existing gaps which are already costly and ineffective, it will help reduce the cost.

The things that were removed were simply to appease people who are determined to find fault anyway with VERY CLEAR language. When in doubt, throw it out. People have and will continue to have a patient's right to discuss end of life decisions with their physicians. But now it will cost them out of pocket. Get it now?

Here's an analysis of the points left on the table when Congress recessed and which will be taken up in the Senate when they return.

The Associated Press: A look at health care plans in Congress

I am not, however, waiting with bated breath for any reform "package" to be enacted, unless there is some sympathy voting over the death of Ted Kennedy who championed this cause for 40 years. The best I can hope for is crackdown on the insurance industry sharks who are, in effect, making all your medical decisions for you within the walls of their glass highrises while you, on the other hand, may lose your modest home due to a catastrophic illness or injury.

Kennedy not being poart of the debate is a shame. His dedication to healthcare reform is unmatched.

How did you know I was a pilot? Or was it striclty a coincidence that you used an airplane as an example.

Do I know you?

I didn't know you were a pilot. I just used the first example that popped into my head! I would never criticize a pilot just for being a pilot.

I did not see it as criticism...I saw it as an analogy to make a point that was, in my eyes, well made. Not sure I totally agree with it, but it is one worthy of consideration.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why is my question avoided in every single thread? Where will the fucking money come from for all this? I mean, great, so everyone is ensured healthcare, can't argue that it's a nice idea. But seriously, does anyone realize why it hasn't happened yet?

It is hoped that the end result will mean cost savings for all procedures, including the more expensive ones. I keep going back to my own experience. Why should it cost $900 for a full blood workup? Those things are done by rote by a lab technician; it doesn't take an MD degree. Why? Because Medicare paid for it, and the hospital lab charged that much because they could.THAT'S the kind of absurd charge that should be monitored as being outrageously overbilled.

Okay, finally, someone addressing the issue. Now, let's look at it from the financial point of view. Basically with Obama's option you are giving the power to pay to the people who have caused only the most expensive procedures/meds/etc. to be allowed into the US as well as the one that charges these businesses a fortune in filing fees. So, do you believe that his plan will cause any decline in price?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about insurance companies or doctor fees for expensive procedures? I think the whole idea is to place most of the emphasis on preventive care so that expensive procedures will be greatly diminished as people won't be waiting until it's too late to do anything but have treatment by specialists. I think they can still charge anything they want.

But insurance companies and the premiums and deductibles they set based on a person's existing health would be faced with greater competition and would be forced to reduce their rates. Isn't that what free market competition is all about? Right now, they monopolize the industry using a standard set of guidelines which they tailor to fit a person's needs and/or desires.

And I don't know what you mean by "filing fees."

I also think that tort reform needs to be addressed, more than just claiming that it already exists (caps on court awards). Medical malpractice insurance varies hugely from state to state, which is a deterence for physicians to practice in certain parts of the country (like Florida) because they can't afford the insurance and no other reason.

 

[KittenKoder]

It is hoped that the end result will mean cost savings for all procedures, including the more expensive ones. I keep going back to my own experience. Why should it cost $900 for a full blood workup? Those things are done by rote by a lab technician; it doesn't take an MD degree. Why? Because Medicare paid for it, and the hospital lab charged that much because they could.THAT'S the kind of absurd charge that should be monitored as being outrageously overbilled.

Okay, finally, someone addressing the issue. Now, let's look at it from the financial point of view. Basically with Obama's option you are giving the power to pay to the people who have caused only the most expensive procedures/meds/etc. to be allowed into the US as well as the one that charges these businesses a fortune in filing fees. So, do you believe that his plan will cause any decline in price?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about insurance companies or doctor fees for expensive procedures? I think the whole idea is to place most of the emphasis on preventive care so that expensive procedures will be greatly diminished as people won't be waiting until it's too late to do anything but have treatment by specialists. I think they can still charge anything they want.

But insurance companies and the premiums and deductibles they set based on a person's existing health would be faced with greater competition and would be forced to reduce their rates. Isn't that what free market competition is all about? Right now, they monopolize the industry using a standard set of guidelines which they tailor to fit a person's needs and/or desires.

And I don't know what you mean by "filing fees."

I also think that tort reform needs to be addressed, more than just claiming that it already exists (caps on court awards). Medical malpractice insurance varies hugely from state to state, which is a deterence for physicians to practice in certain parts of the country (like Florida) because they can't afford the insurance and no other reason.

Aaah ... there's the problem with so many people. The insurance companies do not set the fees they have to pay, that would be just as bad as turning your healthcare over to the mortician, but so few people understand that. The FDA doesn't protect us in health care, in spite of what they tell you. They allow only specific companies into the US, notice that they are always the most expensive ones? More costly is rarely better, so for people to think it's because of those companies being "better" is naive. Now, after you factor in the number of drugs that have killed people which the FDA has allowed, in spite of less expensive alternatives which have stood the test of time this should be glaringly clear who is really controlling the costs. But too few people make even that easy connection. Apply this logic to everything they handle, and you see a pattern emerge in the healthcare industry. Insurance companies have to make a profit, or they go out of business. To do this they have to charge based on the over all costs of what they cover and how frequently it's used by the individual, so to keep from having to overcharge everyone to cover a few people who happen to need it more, they charge premiums or disallow certain over priced procedures. If they did cover everything equally they would have to charge everyone a lot more, even those who never need medical attention.

Now, apply what the insurance companies have to do to what the government is claiming, it simply doesn't work how Obama and his blind followers want it to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What Factcheck says:

"Under the leading House plan, H.R. 3200, and an addition to the bill known as the Capps Amendment, the public plan can cover elective abortions as long as the abortions are paid for only by enrollees' premiums. Similarly, lower-income people will be allowed to use federal subsidies to purchase a public or private plan that covers abortions as long as the subsidy itself does not go toward financing abortions. Supporters say the segregation of funds is a compromise that would work."

What I don't understand is why you right wingers care? Aren't you pro torture and you carry assault weapons around? You use assault weapons on people, not food. Besides, once the kid is born, YOU don't want to take care of it. American conservatives only want to get it born and then, screw it, it's not MY kid. Right?

You're so pro life, but then, what kind of life? By a drug addict mother who will beat the kid to death?

You know what it really, really funny, is Michelle Bachmann, a true representative of the Confederate Party. She says she wants government to "Stay away from my body", apparently except for her uterus. She wants the government to control that.

Even more hilarious, the Republicans want health care to cover Viagra because "erectile dysfunction" or as I call it, "Lackaboner", is a medical condition, but birth control shouldn't be covered.

This is why much of the Republican party is actually insane. They don't need a "check up", they need to be "checked in".

In recent post I annointed you in the following way:
"In the constellation of ignorance, you have attained the magnitude of the North Star"

Glad to see that you have take the appellation to heart, and have striven to maintain the lofty apex of ignorance.

As the Obama moment of charisma seems to have past, and there are fewer and fewer Obama supporters, even the voices on this board seem to have lost their volume, it is good to know that your level of thinking will remain to provide comical entertainment, and counterpoint to actual debate.

The rabid exclamations in your post are stereotypes and bumper-stickers, attuned to the juvenile meanderings of an undeveloped mentality, hoping to pass for actual opinion, nor is it necessary to validate them with an actual response.

In the words of Buddy Holly, 'rave on.'

 

[Oldandtired]

What Factcheck says:

"Under the leading House plan, H.R. 3200, and an addition to the bill known as the Capps Amendment, the public plan can cover elective abortions as long as the abortions are paid for only by enrollees' premiums. Similarly, lower-income people will be allowed to use federal subsidies to purchase a public or private plan that covers abortions as long as the subsidy itself does not go toward financing abortions. Supporters say the segregation of funds is a compromise that would work."

What I don't understand is why you right wingers care? Aren't you pro torture and you carry assault weapons around? You use assault weapons on people, not food. Besides, once the kid is born, YOU don't want to take care of it. American conservatives only want to get it born and then, screw it, it's not MY kid. Right?

You're so pro life, but then, what kind of life? By a drug addict mother who will beat the kid to death?

You know what it really, really funny, is Michelle Bachmann, a true representative of the Confederate Party. She says she wants government to "Stay away from my body", apparently except for her uterus. She wants the government to control that.

Even more hilarious, the Republicans want health care to cover Viagra because "erectile dysfunction" or as I call it, "Lackaboner", is a medical condition, but birth control shouldn't be covered.

This is why much of the Republican party is actually insane. They don't need a "check up", they need to be "checked in".

In recent post I annointed you in the following way:
"In the constellation of ignorance, you have attained the magnitude of the North Star"

Glad to see that you have take the appelation to heart, and have striven to maintain the lofty apex of ignorance.

As the Obama moment of charisma seems to have past, and there are fewer and fewer Obama supporters, even the voices on this board seem to have lost their volume, it is good to know that your level of thinking will remain to provide comical entertainment, and counterpoint to actual debate.

The rabid exclamations in your post are stereotypes and bumper-stickers, attuned to the juvenile meanderings of an undeveloped mentality, hoping to pass for actual opinion, nor is it necessary to validate them with an actual response.

In the words of Buddy Holly, 'rave on.'

Cool response. Very cool.

I find your posts very entertaining and quite accurate.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay, finally, someone addressing the issue. Now, let's look at it from the financial point of view. Basically with Obama's option you are giving the power to pay to the people who have caused only the most expensive procedures/meds/etc. to be allowed into the US as well as the one that charges these businesses a fortune in filing fees. So, do you believe that his plan will cause any decline in price?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about insurance companies or doctor fees for expensive procedures? I think the whole idea is to place most of the emphasis on preventive care so that expensive procedures will be greatly diminished as people won't be waiting until it's too late to do anything but have treatment by specialists. I think they can still charge anything they want.

But insurance companies and the premiums and deductibles they set based on a person's existing health would be faced with greater competition and would be forced to reduce their rates. Isn't that what free market competition is all about? Right now, they monopolize the industry using a standard set of guidelines which they tailor to fit a person's needs and/or desires.

And I don't know what you mean by "filing fees."

I also think that tort reform needs to be addressed, more than just claiming that it already exists (caps on court awards). Medical malpractice insurance varies hugely from state to state, which is a deterence for physicians to practice in certain parts of the country (like Florida) because they can't afford the insurance and no other reason.

Aaah ... there's the problem with so many people. The insurance companies do not set the fees they have to pay, that would be just as bad as turning your healthcare over to the mortician, but so few people understand that. The FDA doesn't protect us in health care, in spite of what they tell you. They allow only specific companies into the US, notice that they are always the most expensive ones? More costly is rarely better, so for people to think it's because of those companies being "better" is naive. Now, after you factor in the number of drugs that have killed people which the FDA has allowed, in spite of less expensive alternatives which have stood the test of time this should be glaringly clear who is really controlling the costs. But too few people make even that easy connection. Apply this logic to everything they handle, and you see a pattern emerge in the healthcare industry. Insurance companies have to make a profit, or they go out of business. To do this they have to charge based on the over all costs of what they cover and how frequently it's used by the individual, so to keep from having to overcharge everyone to cover a few people who happen to need it more, they charge premiums or disallow certain over priced procedures. If they did cover everything equally they would have to charge everyone a lot more, even those who never need medical attention.

Now, apply what the insurance companies have to do to what the government is claiming, it simply doesn't work how Obama and his blind followers want it to.

Gee, thanks. Now I REALLY don't know what you're talking about. Insurance companies have a set of guidelines that they ALL follow when accepting or rejecting a personal health insurance risk. Using your logic, if the cost of some drug goes up or down, insurers would be revising individual policies 24/7/365 which they do not do. I'm simply arguing that health insurers have a monopoly over your medical costs right now, whether you like that explanation or not.

http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about insurance companies or doctor fees for expensive procedures? I think the whole idea is to place most of the emphasis on preventive care so that expensive procedures will be greatly diminished as people won't be waiting until it's too late to do anything but have treatment by specialists. I think they can still charge anything they want.

But insurance companies and the premiums and deductibles they set based on a person's existing health would be faced with greater competition and would be forced to reduce their rates. Isn't that what free market competition is all about? Right now, they monopolize the industry using a standard set of guidelines which they tailor to fit a person's needs and/or desires.

And I don't know what you mean by "filing fees."

I also think that tort reform needs to be addressed, more than just claiming that it already exists (caps on court awards). Medical malpractice insurance varies hugely from state to state, which is a deterence for physicians to practice in certain parts of the country (like Florida) because they can't afford the insurance and no other reason.

Aaah ... there's the problem with so many people. The insurance companies do not set the fees they have to pay, that would be just as bad as turning your healthcare over to the mortician, but so few people understand that. The FDA doesn't protect us in health care, in spite of what they tell you. They allow only specific companies into the US, notice that they are always the most expensive ones? More costly is rarely better, so for people to think it's because of those companies being "better" is naive. Now, after you factor in the number of drugs that have killed people which the FDA has allowed, in spite of less expensive alternatives which have stood the test of time this should be glaringly clear who is really controlling the costs. But too few people make even that easy connection. Apply this logic to everything they handle, and you see a pattern emerge in the healthcare industry. Insurance companies have to make a profit, or they go out of business. To do this they have to charge based on the over all costs of what they cover and how frequently it's used by the individual, so to keep from having to overcharge everyone to cover a few people who happen to need it more, they charge premiums or disallow certain over priced procedures. If they did cover everything equally they would have to charge everyone a lot more, even those who never need medical attention.

Now, apply what the insurance companies have to do to what the government is claiming, it simply doesn't work how Obama and his blind followers want it to.

Gee, thanks. Now I REALLY don't know what you're talking about. Insurance companies have a set of guidelines that they ALL follow when accepting or rejecting a personal health insurance risk. Using your logic, if the cost of some drug goes up or down, insurers would be revising individual policies 24/7/365 which they do not do. I'm simply arguing that health insurers have a monopoly over your medical costs right now, whether you like that explanation or not.

http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

Thus their simple solution of projections. Catch up.

 

[Oldandtired]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about insurance companies or doctor fees for expensive procedures? I think the whole idea is to place most of the emphasis on preventive care so that expensive procedures will be greatly diminished as people won't be waiting until it's too late to do anything but have treatment by specialists. I think they can still charge anything they want.

But insurance companies and the premiums and deductibles they set based on a person's existing health would be faced with greater competition and would be forced to reduce their rates. Isn't that what free market competition is all about? Right now, they monopolize the industry using a standard set of guidelines which they tailor to fit a person's needs and/or desires.

And I don't know what you mean by "filing fees."

I also think that tort reform needs to be addressed, more than just claiming that it already exists (caps on court awards). Medical malpractice insurance varies hugely from state to state, which is a deterence for physicians to practice in certain parts of the country (like Florida) because they can't afford the insurance and no other reason.

Aaah ... there's the problem with so many people. The insurance companies do not set the fees they have to pay, that would be just as bad as turning your healthcare over to the mortician, but so few people understand that. The FDA doesn't protect us in health care, in spite of what they tell you. They allow only specific companies into the US, notice that they are always the most expensive ones? More costly is rarely better, so for people to think it's because of those companies being "better" is naive. Now, after you factor in the number of drugs that have killed people which the FDA has allowed, in spite of less expensive alternatives which have stood the test of time this should be glaringly clear who is really controlling the costs. But too few people make even that easy connection. Apply this logic to everything they handle, and you see a pattern emerge in the healthcare industry. Insurance companies have to make a profit, or they go out of business. To do this they have to charge based on the over all costs of what they cover and how frequently it's used by the individual, so to keep from having to overcharge everyone to cover a few people who happen to need it more, they charge premiums or disallow certain over priced procedures. If they did cover everything equally they would have to charge everyone a lot more, even those who never need medical attention.

Now, apply what the insurance companies have to do to what the government is claiming, it simply doesn't work how Obama and his blind followers want it to.

Gee, thanks. Now I REALLY don't know what you're talking about. Insurance companies have a set of guidelines that they ALL follow when accepting or rejecting a personal health insurance risk. Using your logic, if the cost of some drug goes up or down, insurers would be revising individual policies 24/7/365 which they do not do. I'm simply arguing that health insurers have a monopoly over your medical costs right now, whether you like that explanation or not.

http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

Approximatetly 1300 health insurance carriers in the US.

With 1300 companies....how can the word MONOPOLY be used?

As business owner, I am approcahed by carriers all the time with plans that are more cost effective than the plan I have at the time...I wind up changing plans every couple of years.

You are misguided or misinformed if you believe that all health policies are similar in cost and serv ices. They are all very different. Sure...similar...but all cars are similar as well....does the automobile industry have a monololy?

All TV's are similar....does the TV industry have a monoloply?

I do not understand your logic. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Where am I misunderstanding you?

 

[MaggieMae]

Aaah ... there's the problem with so many people. The insurance companies do not set the fees they have to pay, that would be just as bad as turning your healthcare over to the mortician, but so few people understand that. The FDA doesn't protect us in health care, in spite of what they tell you. They allow only specific companies into the US, notice that they are always the most expensive ones? More costly is rarely better, so for people to think it's because of those companies being "better" is naive. Now, after you factor in the number of drugs that have killed people which the FDA has allowed, in spite of less expensive alternatives which have stood the test of time this should be glaringly clear who is really controlling the costs. But too few people make even that easy connection. Apply this logic to everything they handle, and you see a pattern emerge in the healthcare industry. Insurance companies have to make a profit, or they go out of business. To do this they have to charge based on the over all costs of what they cover and how frequently it's used by the individual, so to keep from having to overcharge everyone to cover a few people who happen to need it more, they charge premiums or disallow certain over priced procedures. If they did cover everything equally they would have to charge everyone a lot more, even those who never need medical attention.

Now, apply what the insurance companies have to do to what the government is claiming, it simply doesn't work how Obama and his blind followers want it to.

Gee, thanks. Now I REALLY don't know what you're talking about. Insurance companies have a set of guidelines that they ALL follow when accepting or rejecting a personal health insurance risk. Using your logic, if the cost of some drug goes up or down, insurers would be revising individual policies 24/7/365 which they do not do. I'm simply arguing that health insurers have a monopoly over your medical costs right now, whether you like that explanation or not.

http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

Thus their simple solution of projections. Catch up.

Sorry, but I can't figure out exactly what you're trying to say. Are you defending insurance companies by saying they need to keep their premiums and deductibles high just in case? If so, name any other private businesses that operate in that manner (other than oil companies, that is). Competition is the hallmark of American capitalism. What part of that aren't you getting?

 

[MaggieMae]

Aaah ... there's the problem with so many people. The insurance companies do not set the fees they have to pay, that would be just as bad as turning your healthcare over to the mortician, but so few people understand that. The FDA doesn't protect us in health care, in spite of what they tell you. They allow only specific companies into the US, notice that they are always the most expensive ones? More costly is rarely better, so for people to think it's because of those companies being "better" is naive. Now, after you factor in the number of drugs that have killed people which the FDA has allowed, in spite of less expensive alternatives which have stood the test of time this should be glaringly clear who is really controlling the costs. But too few people make even that easy connection. Apply this logic to everything they handle, and you see a pattern emerge in the healthcare industry. Insurance companies have to make a profit, or they go out of business. To do this they have to charge based on the over all costs of what they cover and how frequently it's used by the individual, so to keep from having to overcharge everyone to cover a few people who happen to need it more, they charge premiums or disallow certain over priced procedures. If they did cover everything equally they would have to charge everyone a lot more, even those who never need medical attention.

Now, apply what the insurance companies have to do to what the government is claiming, it simply doesn't work how Obama and his blind followers want it to.

Gee, thanks. Now I REALLY don't know what you're talking about. Insurance companies have a set of guidelines that they ALL follow when accepting or rejecting a personal health insurance risk. Using your logic, if the cost of some drug goes up or down, insurers would be revising individual policies 24/7/365 which they do not do. I'm simply arguing that health insurers have a monopoly over your medical costs right now, whether you like that explanation or not.

http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

Approximatetly 1300 health insurance carriers in the US.

With 1300 companies....how can the word MONOPOLY be used?

As business owner, I am approcahed by carriers all the time with plans that are more cost effective than the plan I have at the time...I wind up changing plans every couple of years.

You are misguided or misinformed if you believe that all health policies are similar in cost and serv ices. They are all very different. Sure...similar...but all cars are similar as well....does the automobile industry have a monololy?

All TV's are similar....does the TV industry have a monoloply?

I do not understand your logic. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Where am I misunderstanding you?

Employer coverage is a whole different ballgame. I'm talking about individual health insurance policies, not group policies which are, in fact, pooled based on demographics and the specific disciplines of the work environment. My group insurance for a large law firm, for example, would not cover the same things as group insurance for a large manufacturer of turbines.

 

[Oldandtired]

Gee, thanks. Now I REALLY don't know what you're talking about. Insurance companies have a set of guidelines that they ALL follow when accepting or rejecting a personal health insurance risk. Using your logic, if the cost of some drug goes up or down, insurers would be revising individual policies 24/7/365 which they do not do. I'm simply arguing that health insurers have a monopoly over your medical costs right now, whether you like that explanation or not.

http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf

Approximatetly 1300 health insurance carriers in the US.

With 1300 companies....how can the word MONOPOLY be used?

As business owner, I am approcahed by carriers all the time with plans that are more cost effective than the plan I have at the time...I wind up changing plans every couple of years.

You are misguided or misinformed if you believe that all health policies are similar in cost and serv ices. They are all very different. Sure...similar...but all cars are similar as well....does the automobile industry have a monololy?

All TV's are similar....does the TV industry have a monoloply?

I do not understand your logic. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Where am I misunderstanding you?

Employer coverage is a whole different ballgame. I'm talking about individual health insurance policies, not group policies which are, in fact, pooled based on demographics and the specific disciplines of the work environment. My group insurance for a large law firm, for example, would not cover the same things as group insurance for a large manufacturer of turbines.

Of course not. Manufacturing firms, OSHA compatible or not, are deemed as dangerous environments and thus insurance will be more expensive....

As for personal health insurance...I still do not see how mono;oly can be applied. It is an industry driven by profit and so level of profit desired allows for "lower premiums" offered by those willing to take less of a profit.

However, the real issue is lack of true competition thanks to state line restrictions.

Imagine how quickly prices would drop if all of a sudden, insurance companies had 1299 other companiues competeing with them?

Obama says ONE public government owned and run insurance company will do that....

so why not simply open state lines so 1300 other companies can compete with them?

Then set regulations such as "you can not drop an insured based on amount of claims" and "it is discrimination to NOT offer one a policy due to pre-existing condition"....and finally..."those that can not afford insurance can opt into medicare"...

There.....1000 pages less and we have eliminated 98% of the problem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even more hilarious, the Republicans want health care to cover Viagra because "erectile dysfunction" or as I call it, "Lackaboner", is a medical condition, but birth control shouldn't be covered.

This is because Republicans are the ones that need this drug.

Am I reading between the lines, or is this a revelation about your sordid past, multitude of partners, or perhaps a business endeavor in which you have some vast experience?

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, so, just to clarify with the OP...

You're saying Obama is effectively lying because there's nothing in the bill about abortion at all?

I'm just curious, as that would be a rather odd statement, to say the least.