Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:Democrat strategists have been saying this all along... They're going to get single payer.

I wasn't aware that competition for the insurance industry was such a bad thing...

You should also get into the habit of naming who you are quoting, Phryxis. No offense, it's just very confusing.

I wasn't aware that competition for the insurance industry was such a bad thing...

It's a bad thing when that competition can run at a loss, and then simply take the difference out of taxpayer money. The free market doesn't work if it's not free. But, then, you can bet that the liberals will claim it was free, and pat themselves on the back for disproving free market efficiency.

You should also get into the habit of naming who you are quoting, Phryxis.

I've heard sound bytes, I don't have an actual source I can link. Honestly, I didn't think this was even a point of contention. Obama himself as said he wants single payer. I'm suggesting he still wants it, but takes what he can get. Honestly, does that even need to be supported? It's just a fact...

No. I was referring to your lack of reference for the quotes in this thread.

No worries man. You quote without naming who you are quoting, not that it matters all that much, it just gets confusing.

Phryxis wrote:It's a bad thing when that competition can run at a loss, and then simply take the difference out of taxpayer money. The free market doesn't work if it's not free. But, then, you can bet that the liberals will claim it was free, and pat themselves on the back for disproving free market efficiency.

I understand your point, and see where a problem could arise, and probably would.

Given my perspective, and all the crap my family has had to put up with... I just feel strongly enough that the problems that could arise, are not sufficient to cross the possibility of single-payer out entirely. I like the idea, and generally have a background that supports the implementation of government run insurance anyway.

I don't like jumping through hoops, and I would expect fewer hoops from the government, leading to better competition for Ins companies. I won't call them pigs, but I would get damn close.

Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?

Phryxis wrote:
As I said, you can't charge an increased premium against somebody who isn't paying for it.

I realize there are fines for people who aren't insured, but honestly, how long do you think those fines will outstrip the benefits to only paying for insurance when you need it?

They don't outstrip them now, though I'm not entirely clear on what it means to prohibit 'preexisting exclusions' as the term is never (as far as I can recall) explicitly defined in the legislation. It could involve either the prohibition of excluding certain preexisting conditions from coverage, the prohibition of denying people coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, or some combination of the two.

Phryxis wrote:
That's the exact PLAN. They will levy small fines for now, and then when health insurer's premiums soar, because people are abusing the system, and uninsurable people HAVE to be insured, then whatever Democrat is in office will say "well, we're not going to increase the fine, we're friends of the little guy, not big business!"

How many people do you think are uninsured because they were actually denied coverage, and not simply because they cannot afford it?

Phryxis wrote:
So, you can think that him backing off of things means he had a change of heart, but it doesn't. It means he saw how much he could get done above the table, and now the rest will get done out of sight. Democrat strategists have been saying this all along... They're going to get single payer.

Maybe, maybe not. Single payer isn't the only option floating around in Democratic circles.

ugh.. my fething head.

Nobody answered my question regards potential nominess for the future, who do you guys envisage actually being able to challenge the dems?

My missus keeps saying Huckabee and Palin, but she is a bitter woman with a hearty dislike of her own country.

I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?

It just seems like the cupboards a bit bare to me.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?

I should have thought about that, but I didn't because I was in a rush to head out earlier.

'Public option' would have been an appropriate term, but I didn't think about it enough, and responded in kind.

At any rate, it depends on how loosely you are using the term 'single-payer', and some would consider medicare something along those lines. That was not was Phryxis was referring to, at least I assume so, and my response was a bit pointless overall. Oh well.

mattyrm wrote:I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?

It just seems like the cupboards a bit bare to me.

Two years is a very long time, and things could change substantially. As it stands, there aren't many options from my perspective. That is likely to change to some degree over the coming years, but not necessarily in a positive direction overall.

Bobby Jindall has been floated out there as a potential runner for '12 but I don't think he's expressed any desire to run or even been rumored to be putting out feelers. He seems to be doing a good job in Louisianna from what admittedly little I read about him. There's also a small minority who want to see him run simply to remove the "race card" from the ballot as they see it.

Mitt Romney could have a shot if the economy remains in the tank. He's been one of the more vocal Republican front runners in his opposition to the stimulus bills and such. His business background will give him credibility with Republicans, and he seems to have some cross-party appeal as he was elected in Massachusetts as a republican (twice I believe).

I don't think Palin will run. I don't think she's as big an idiot as everyone here claims, and I definitely think the American media has hit some new lows in their treatment of her and her family, but it was effective and I think her name has significant baggage attached to it. McCain did his own election run a disservice by letting her hijack it.

I was referring to your lack of reference for the quotes in this thread.

Ok, then I'm confused, I don't recall directly quoting anybody... I had a few made up quotes, but so did a bunch of other posters. It was just in the form of what we imagine someody would say, or to emphasize that the word isn't reality, but what people call it. For example, governmnet spending is "responsible."

I would expect fewer hoops from the government

Oh jeez... Yeah, that's not even close to reality. You will NEVER see more hoops than you will when dealing with government.

Here's the thing...

Let's say you work for a small business, and know the owner personally. The company has a policy of not letting people enroll in the healh insurance plan until their 3rd month with the company, but you've got a baby due soon, so the owner pulls some strings and gets you on.

Now imagine you work for a very large corporation. Your boss's boss's boss has never even MET the CEO. If you want something to happen, it has to travel all the way up the chain of command. By the time it gets to anybody that can actually do anything about it, that person is too high ranking to concern themselves with such little things.

And what's the United States Government? It's the largest corporation in the world. I work for the Feds. Let me assure you, you've never seen so much hoop jumping in your LIFE. Sometimes I think that they've set up so many hoops that you spend 39 hours a week jumping through hoops to get 1 hour of actual work done.

They don't outstrip them now

Sure, but they haven't put the reforms into effect yet. And, honestly, I think that's the exact plan. Set a precedent for the fines, set an expectation... Then start driving premiums up until the fine is far less, and then act amazed at how greedy the insurance companies are.

How many people do you think are uninsured because they were actually denied coverage, and not simply because they cannot afford it?

That's not really relevant to my point. The real question is how many people will stop paying for coverage, knowing they can simply get it when they need it?

I'd think that basically ALL workers between the age of 21 and 30 would not bother to carry coverage. I know I spent that whole period of my working life paying into a pot that I never took out of. When you start having kids, it changes, but even then, you're still not taking out as much as you put in.

There are just SO many ways that this is going to hurt the system...

The one I keep harping on is that people will be encouraged not to carry insurance, and then buy it when they have an expensive medical condition.

The other is the simple fact that we just don't treat some people currently. Some folks may consider this a problem that has to be fixed, I certainly don't disagree that it sucks to let sick people get worse and worse, then give them some attention right before they die... But then again, if you simply can't AFFORD to do any better, pretending you can helps nobody. The medical community calls it "triage" and they didn't invent the concept because they're stinky mean meanies. It's because reality dosn't care how sorry we feel for sick people.

Mitt Romney could have a shot if the economy remains in the tank

At this early stage, I agree. Romney or Guiliani. I'd actually really hope it's Giuliani, I think he's the only name out there, in any party, that really has some accomplishments in his resume, and in a pretty bipartisan context.

I'm sure liberals will find a way to turn on him and pretend he didn't do a lot for NYC because the partisan rancor is so ridiculous.

jeez... Yeah, that's not even close to reality. You will NEVER see more hoops than you will when dealing with government.

Here's the thing...

Let's say you work for a small business, and know the owner personally. The company has a policy of not letting people enroll in the healh insurance plan until their 3rd month with the company, but you've got a baby due soon, so the owner pulls some strings and gets you on.

Now imagine you work for a very large corporation. Your boss's boss's boss has never even MET the CEO. If you want something to happen, it has to travel all the way up the chain of command. By the time it gets to anybody that can actually do anything about it, that person is too high ranking to concern themselves with such little things.

And what's the United States Government? It's the largest corporation in the world. I work for the Feds. Let me assure you, you've never seen so much hoop jumping in your LIFE. Sometimes I think that they've set up so many hoops that you spend 39 hours a week jumping through hoops to get 1 hour of actual work done.

The largest employer in America is WalMart, a business known for it's lack of benefits and harsh policies concerning unions or strike workers. In fact the majority of Americans work in large-scale companies. Your example would hold up better if it actually reflected real world conditions and didn't fall into a boilerplate government inefficiency textwall (as if the price fixed and bloated insurance agencies we had before were anything but inefficient, corrupt, and greedy).

Sure, but they haven't put the reforms into effect yet. And, honestly, I think that's the exact plan. Set a precedent for the fines, set an expectation... Then start driving premiums up until the fine is far less, and then act amazed at how greedy the insurance companies are.

Wasn't that what we were doing before? Insurance premiums had risen beyond inflation by an order of magnitude over the last 20 years while the operating costs of insurers had not.

That's not really relevant to my point. The real question is how many people will stop paying for coverage, knowing they can simply get it when they need it?

I'd think that basically ALL workers between the age of 21 and 30 would not bother to carry coverage. I know I spent that whole period of my working life paying into a pot that I never took out of. When you start having kids, it changes, but even then, you're still not taking out as much as you put in.

There are just SO many ways that this is going to hurt the system...

It's possible it could, though logically thinking that the majority of Americans will be willing to pay repetitious fines so that in the event that they need it they can jump through likely weeks of beuracratic hoops in order to get free fallback insurance is a bit silly, also your repeated implication that the previous system was sustainable and can somehow be "damaged" is incorrect.

The one I keep harping on is that people will be encouraged not to carry insurance, and then buy it when they have an expensive medical condition.

That is unless they want preventative care which was prohibitively expensive in our last system and which this bill is supposed to foster. I would think most people would want to catch the cancer early.

The other is the simple fact that we just don't treat some people currently. Some folks may consider this a problem that has to be fixed, I certainly don't disagree that it sucks to let sick people get worse and worse, then give them some attention right before they die... But then again, if you simply can't AFFORD to do any better, pretending you can helps nobody. The medical community calls it "triage" and they didn't invent the concept because they're stinky mean meanies. It's because reality dosn't care how sorry we feel for sick people.

Actually that exact process is within the bill. It was part of the whole death panel fiasco though it got pretty well distorted in the public perception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

At this early stage, I agree. Romney or Guiliani. I'd actually really hope it's Giuliani, I think he's the only name out there, in any party, that really has some accomplishments in his resume, and in a pretty bipartisan context.

I'm sure liberals will find a way to turn on him and pretend he didn't do a lot for NYC because the partisan rancor is so ridiculous.

I still doubt Romneys chops as a candidate that makes it past primary. He speaks too losely. Guliani could work but I don't think he could afford to have a harsh spotlight shown on his past, I suspect quite a few things in his office aren't on the level.

In fact the majority of Americans work in large-scale companies.

Really?

http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

But what do I know? What does the SBA know? Let's all defer to you, full time student with a Major in Nacissim and a Minor in Internet Snark.

Insurance premiums had risen beyond inflation by an order of magnitude over the last 20 years while the operating costs of insurers had not.

And that's why you see people pointing to tort reform as a better solution.

Why have those prices gone up? We're talking about multi-billion dollar industries here. It's not all going to executive compensation.

If there was a way to do it for less, somebody would be able to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Why is that no happening?

That is unless they want preventative care which was prohibitively expensive in our last system and which this bill is supposed to foster.

While there's no question that efficiencies are being missed in the areas of preventative care, as I already said, most people between 21 and 30 don't really need preventative care, and as little as they need it, their youthful optimism will convince them they need it even less than that.

A quick google suggests that the penalty for not carrying insurance is about $950 a year. That's not going to keep pace with insurance premiums. Not only that, but the Democrats can score a political win by refusing to increase it. Win/win situation for them.

I suspect quite a few things in his office aren't on the level.

It's all just a matter of spin. Obama has numerous things in his past that I would NEVER have believed a candidate could survive, but if the mainstream media want somebody, they'll get what they want.

Giuliani would need to show up with his conservative fiscal policy at a time when it looks good, and then play up his more liberal social policy without alienatig conservatives. You HAVE to win (or at least not lose) the mainstream media.

Really?

http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24

But what do I know? What does the SBA know? Let's all defer to you, full time student with a Major in Nacissim and a Minor in Internet Snark.

Small businesses continue to play a vital role in the economy of the United States. During the 1998- 2004 time period, small businesses produced half of private nonfarm GDP.2 It is worth noting that while the share of GDP attributable to small business has remained relatively stable over the years, a detailed look at the industry level reveals a more dynamic picture. While the small business share of many
of the industries studied declined during this time period, strong growth in small business-dominated sectors helped the overall share remain at 50 percent.
The small business share of GDP has held virtu- ally constant from 1998 through 2004 starting at 50.5 percent in 1998, reaching 49.9 percent in 2000 then rising to 50.7 percent in 2004. This represents sev- eral years of relative stability in the small business share since the mid-1980s.

You should check your own FAQ sources more often when posting older articles. Post crash, and even post fours years of the bush presidency after 2004 private small business jobs have been on the decline, sharply contracting in 2008 and having still not rebounded. They do not comprise a current majority.

And that's why you see people pointing to tort reform as a better solution.

Why have those prices gone up? We're talking about multi-billion dollar industries here. It's not all going to executive compensation.

If there was a way to do it for less, somebody would be able to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Why is that no happening?

Price fixing and non competition agreements between major firms increasing net profitability for all involved while under the blanket protection of previously precedented U.S. law making it incredibly difficult to establish a new competing firm. The ailments of the insurance and especially medical insurance agencies are fairly well documented at this point, it's one of the most visibly unethical business sectors in America.

While there's no question that efficiencies are being missed in the areas of preventative care, as I already said, most people between 21 and 30 don't really need preventative care, and as little as they need it, their youthful optimism will convince them they need it even less than that.

It can also be argued that they were most often uninsured under the previous system and that statistically it's unlikely that they would (as you said) require preventative care and would in a statistically relevant way only be insured via their employers or parents (the latter of which has been lengthened decreasing the probably period of insurancelessness). You're arguing for a lack of forethought in a problem that was endemic previous, the burden has simply been placed on the government instead of the private hospitals that would be taking the same hit. I also don't believe that it will be typical for the young to forgo insurance within the bills system, however thats to be seen. It's a living document and is sure to change many, many times. That alone makes it superior to what we had.

A quick google suggests that the penalty for not carrying insurance is about $950 a year. That's not going to keep pace with insurance premiums. Not only that, but the Democrats can score a political win by refusing to increase it. Win/win situation for them.

Are you assuming insurance premiums are going to rise? The common mode of thought is to assume that given a sizeable competitive entry into the market that they would fall to recover market share. Something they haven't had in 20 years.

It's all just a matter of spin. Obama has numerous things in his past that I would NEVER have believed a candidate could survive, but if the mainstream media want somebody, they'll get what they want.

The mainstream media doesn't have the infatuation with Guliani that it had with Obama, nor even Bush or Mccain. About the only crisis he has under his belt is 9/11 and some skillfull crime reduction policies, but he doesn't have the starpower to overcome a lack of point winning previous accomplishments (wheres the freedom tower?) and he's getting under quite a few peoples skins in both parties. He's very similar to the governator in the regard that he doesn't seem to care to please anyone outside of the NY electoral machine and his own direct constituents. It makes him sell on the news and popular in his state, but a target nationally.

Giuliani would need to show up with his conservative fiscal policy at a time when it looks good, and then play up his more liberal social policy without alienatig conservatives. You HAVE to win (or at least not lose) the mainstream media.

I'm just not entirely convinced he can pull that off and running outside of the two parties platforms isn't going to win him favors. It's how McCain lost. The conservative base wants to be energized by a snakeoil salesmen and the liberals are going to vote for Obeezy regardless. To get out the vote you can't really try to cater cross isle against an incumbent. The way you pull off elections against sitting presidents is by bringing out your own votes.

Don't be surprised if Obama gets re-elected. Especially if the House and Senate go GOP. All that needs to happen is for the economy to improve between now and 2012. Demographics are moving the Dems' way more every year, and the power of incumbency is very strong in Presidential elections.

Plus often all you need to do is stay out of your own way and let your opponents and critics stumble...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38299783/ns/politics/

Phryxis wrote:

I was referring to your lack of reference for the quotes in this thread.

Ok, then I'm confused, I don't recall directly quoting anybody... I had a few made up quotes, but so did a bunch of other posters. It was just in the form of what we imagine someody would say, or to emphasize that the word isn't reality, but what people call it. For example, governmnet spending is "responsible."

I believe what he was referring to is the light gray quote box that's right above these letters; the one that you use to quote what other posters have said in this thread. As you can see, the box with your quote in it says "Phryxis wrote" in the corner; that's what Wrex was meaning by assigning names to the quotes (it helps other people keep track of who you're responding to).

Wrexasaur wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?

I should have thought about that, but I didn't because I was in a rush to head out earlier.

'Public option' would have been an appropriate term, but I didn't think about it enough, and responded in kind.

At any rate, it depends on how loosely you are using the term 'single-payer', and some would consider medicare something along those lines. That was not was Phryxis was referring to, at least I assume so, and my response was a bit pointless overall. Oh well.

No worries, I had those mixed up with each other not too long ago, and I was concerned I'd already mixed them up again!

Price fixing and non competition agreements between major firms increasing net profitability for all involved while under the blanket protection of previously precedented U.S. law making it incredibly difficult to establish a new competing firm.

I won't bother rephrasing what this guy said, so I can look like I knew it off the top of my head:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html

Notice also the average costs of health insurance plans relative to the proposed penalty...

You're arguing for a lack of forethought in a problem that was endemic previous, the burden has simply been placed on the government instead of the private hospitals that would be taking the same hit.

I think I'm actually arguing that there IS forethought, and they fully intend to place the burder on the government as a stepping stone to fully absorbing the function of private insurers into government.

That said, I do like the idea of addressing problems with health costs at the appropriate level. By forcing hospitals to provide unpaid care, you create a false perception of what healthcare costs. If we're going to force hospitals to provide care, we should assure that they get paid for their services, and make the accounting accurate.

Are you assuming insurance premiums are going to rise?

Absolutely. Even if nobody games the system, simply forcing insurers to take on people with pre-existing conditions will drive up costs for everyone.

He's very similar to the governator in the regard that he doesn't seem to care to please anyone outside of the NY electoral machine and his own direct constituents.

That's why I like him. If you don't hold both parties in some level of contempt, then you're a crook or a liar.

The way you pull off elections against sitting presidents is by bringing out your own votes.

Against Obama, sure. There's simply too much media spin defending him, and, honestly, he's been dealt a tough hand, which I think people recognize. People won't dump him in huge numbers.

Somebody like Rush Limbaugh would argue that you rally your base, and forget the "moderates." He may be right, I don't know.

Don't be surprised if Obama gets re-elected.

I wouldnt be surprised AT ALL. I fully expect him to get re-elected. I fully expect the mainstream media to line up behind him and start damage control in late 2011, so he's fully cleaned up and ready to beat whatever buffoon the Republicans come up with.

I believe what he was referring to is the light gray quote box that's right above these letters

Ohhhhhh, I got it. Yeah, I just type notesboard markup version. Sorry.

I won't bother rephrasing what this guy said, so I can look like I knew it off the top of my head:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html

Notice also the average costs of health insurance plans relative to the proposed penalty...

Yeah, a solid generation of price fixing and zero sum anticompetitiveness generally leads to poor bottom line direct profitability margins given administrative bloat. Line that up with executive pay and shareholder benefits and you get a different story however as insurance executives rank among some of the most commonly well paid (note, not highest paid but instead most commonly highly paid. The giants of the industry certainly absorb massive executive payments, but the average salaries of virtually the entire spectrum within upper level management are quite high). Insurance companies didn't need to grow they just needed to exist. That was more than enough for them.

I think I'm actually arguing that there IS forethought, and they fully intend to place the burder on the government as a stepping stone to fully absorbing the function of private insurers into government.

Thats certainly possible, and it's a move that I would personally support. However the bill as written and as spoken of by its authors don't actually imply that it's a procedural step in that direction. It would be a difficult next step to take given the heavy opposition such a move would inevitably encounter.

Absolutely. Even if nobody games the system, simply forcing insurers to take on people with pre-existing conditions will drive up costs for everyone.

Certainly possible, however I would wait to see how that actually ends up on the bottom line. Keep in mind the insurers can often make significant profits from the estates of those deceased after a lengthy hospital treatment and not being able to refuse someone is not the same as not being able to charge significant fees to ensure a new high risk customer.

That's why I like him. If you don't hold both parties in some level of contempt, then you're a crook or a liar.

I'm of the distinct opinion that Guliani is both a crook and a liar. When you do nothing but game the local political system the same could be said and the back rooms of new york are famous.

Against Obama, sure. There's simply too much media spin defending him, and, honestly, he's been dealt a tough hand, which I think people recognize. People won't dump him in huge numbers.

Somebody like Rush Limbaugh would argue that you rally your base, and forget the "moderates." He may be right, I don't know.

Worked for bush in his second term though post 9/11 bush was every bit the PR darling that Obama was during his presidential bid. Guy had starpower coming out of his ears.

mattyrm wrote:

So, theres some smart folks on here, i figured id ask the question, do our American chums think that the republicans are going to walk to the next election?

Who is even likely to run? Do Americans really allow their religious views to affect their political ones? (I will vote for Huck cos he is a young earther like me!)

The average American voter will vote for whatever candidate their party puts forward. ie, if palin runs for the republicans then the vast majority of people who call themselves republican will vote for her and they will do it with a smile.

So the majority of voters will vote depending on if the candidate has a R or D next to their name.

Some will also vote on one issue the best example of this is "pro life" vs "pro choice" I know people who vote on this one issue if a candidate says that roe v wade should be overturned then all the "pro lifers" will vote for them, same for goes for "pro choice" people voting for "pro choice" candidates.

So yes, Americans will let their religious views effect their political views, its less "I will vote for Huck cos he is a young earther like me!" and more "I will vote for huck because he won't allow abortions because life begins at conception, because that’s what my bible says" This is also Palins view and why people liked her.

It is truly better to be a radical Islamic cleric in America then it is to be an atheist. At least as a radical Islamic cleric people will respect your right to worship in your own way.

I could go on (for quite a bit) but talking about my countries political and social landscape makes me physically sick and depressed… sad isn’t it?

Yeah, a solid generation of price fixing and zero sum anticompetitiveness generally leads to poor bottom line direct profitability margins given administrative bloat.

So, if I understand you correctly, the reason that the health insurance industry is not making huge profits is that they are running inefficiently, paying a higher scaled salary across the boards, and thus not making a profit...

Why would shareholders tolerate this?

Why is this sort of price fixing present in this industry, but not in others?

Thats certainly possible, and it's a move that I would personally support.

I would also support a single payer option, except that I have zero faith in the government administering it honestly. Fannie and Freddie are the history for this sort of thing.

I'd like to see a sort of "core" offering provided by the government, and then "features" added on by private industry which combine with the core offering. So, basically, everyone would get regular checkups at public clinics... If they wanted upscale clinics with easier scheduling, whatever, they could get their own coverage.

I'm sure that would rapidly degenerate into the government/private sector arguing over who was responsible for what payment, and people waging class warfare over having to go to "government cheese" health clinics, but whatever...

not being able to refuse someone is not the same as not being able to charge significant fees to ensure a new high risk customer.

I was under the impression that was not an option. I mean, what insurer would deny coverage if they were allowed to charge a million dollars a month, or whatever? They could care less how much the treatments are, so long as they're less than what you're paying them.

though post 9/11 bush was every bit the PR darling that Obama was during his presidential bid. Guy had starpower coming out of his ears.

I'm not sure I ever saw that... The President of the United States had star power at that point in time, and that happened to be GWB. It was well before 2004 that the mainstream press had returned to demonizing virtually everything he did.

Phryxis wrote:
Sure, but they haven't put the reforms into effect yet. And, honestly, I think that's the exact plan. Set a precedent for the fines, set an expectation... Then start driving premiums up until the fine is far less, and then act amazed at how greedy the insurance companies are.

You misunderstand. The fines are far lower, at ~700 USD if I recall correctly, than any reasonable health insurance premium. For example, I pay nearly 2000 USD per year for my insurance plan.

Phryxis wrote:
That's not really relevant to my point. The real question is how many people will stop paying for coverage, knowing they can simply get it when they need it?

I think it is relevant insofar as we're discussing 'uninsurable' people, which is what I was commenting on.

Phryxis wrote:
I'd think that basically ALL workers between the age of 21 and 30 would not bother to carry coverage. I know I spent that whole period of my working life paying into a pot that I never took out of. When you start having kids, it changes, but even then, you're still not taking out as much as you put in.

Presently, the majority of insurance plans will cover the consequences of preexisting conditions. Its actually really hard to have a claim denied on that basis so long as coverage is approved.

My mom works in insurance, not that it makes me an expert, and I've heard nothing but praise singing as a result of this bill. That doesn't mean it will actually improve health care, but it certainly doesn't seem like it will kill the insurance industry; it simply isn't significant enough to break their bottom line.

Phryxis wrote:
The one I keep harping on is that people will be encouraged not to carry insurance, and then buy it when they have an expensive medical condition.

We still don't know the meaning of 'preexisting exclusion' so its not certain that will be the case.

Phryxis wrote:
The other is the simple fact that we just don't treat some people currently. Some folks may consider this a problem that has to be fixed, I certainly don't disagree that it sucks to let sick people get worse and worse, then give them some attention right before they die... But then again, if you simply can't AFFORD to do any better, pretending you can helps nobody. The medical community calls it "triage" and they didn't invent the concept because they're stinky mean meanies. It's because reality dosn't care how sorry we feel for sick people.

Sure, but other nations don't seem to have that issue, so why are we pretending that its impossible to offer universal coverage? Triage is about prioritization on the basis of need, not on the basis of payment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:ugh.. my fething head.

Nobody answered my question regards potential nominess for the future, who do you guys envisage actually being able to challenge the dems?

My missus keeps saying Huckabee and Palin, but she is a bitter woman with a hearty dislike of her own country.

Its still to early to be certain, but I doubt that Palin will run. Other than that, I would expect a Republican primary very similar to the last one, maybe adding Jindal.

mattyrm wrote:
I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?

You give to much credit to the American public. Being a "good ol' gal" is almost always more important than being intelligent. Remember, the mob is stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
I was under the impression that was not an option. I mean, what insurer would deny coverage if they were allowed to charge a million dollars a month, or whatever? They could care less how much the treatments are, so long as they're less than what you're paying them.

According to the current legislation it isn't a legal issue. I've heard talk of 'deductible windows' in the health insurance plans where the insured is essentially required to pay all health costs within the first 3 months of the policy. Brilliant idea really, I wish I had thought of it.

Phryxis wrote:

Thats certainly possible, and it's a move that I would personally support.

I would also support a single payer option, except that I have zero faith in the government administering it honestly. Fannie and Freddie are the history for this sort of thing.

I'd like to see a sort of "core" offering provided by the government, and then "features" added on by private industry which combine with the core offering. So, basically, everyone would get regular checkups at public clinics... If they wanted upscale clinics with easier scheduling, whatever, they could get their own coverage.

I'm sure that would rapidly degenerate into the government/private sector arguing over who was responsible for what payment, and people waging class warfare over having to go to "government cheese" health clinics, but whatever...

Wait, you just described england health care system to a tee

Everyone gets coverage but you always have the choice to go to private clinic for better care or quicker waits.

There once was a man caught in a flood. He saw a box that would support him so he he dragged it outside to the tree with a tire swing tied to it. He then grabbed a piece of wood to use as a paddle/pole and then hopped into it the box.

Now the as the water rose the man noticed that the box was not floating and surmized that the scrap wood and metal bits were weighing the box down. He hopped out of the box, hitting his head on the tire swing and, cursing, he emptied the box. When he was done the box was floating but bumping into the tire swing. Annoyed the man drug the box a few feet away and hopped in.

The box held his wieght but was unstable and leaking. The man tried to plug the holes but to no avail. He contented himself with bailing the water out while trying to keep the box stable. As he was doing this the box drifted over towards the tree and the tire swing knocked him over.

Cursing the d*mned tree and swing, he got back into the box that was now about a third full of water. He tried to bail the box out. but as it filled with water more leaks appeared. The water rushed in faster than he could bail it out and the box was soon floundering. The man was about to hop out and try to dump the box out in the now neck high water but his pants had become caught on a nil in the box. He tried to kick his way free of the box but failed and ended up drowning in his own back yard.

This cheesy bad story describes the U.S. and its people.

Anyone care to translate the story and its moral?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Man I hope the coalition wins the Oz election so we can have some competent politicians we don't like in instead of the bunch of clown shoes government we have now.

Umm, the alternative isn’t competence, it’s Abbott.

Phryxis wrote:My impression is that Obama IS a socialist, but the President of the US is a friend of big business. That's why you see the dichotomy that so confuses people. His personal views are far, far to the left of the American mainstream, but when you're the President of the US, you've got a lot of history and tradition to deal with, and that forces your hand.

I wouldn’t go anywhere near calling him a socialist (because unlike the US, over here that word has a meaning) but I do agree that his personal beliefs are more progressive than the realities of his office allow him to be. And I think it is fairly astute observation that that might be causing a significant portion of the dissatisfaction with his presidency.

The thing about American Democrats, is that they know they're always winning. Slowly or quickly, they're always winning. They win a couple elections, get some majorities, pass a bunch of insane, unfunded social programs, and make promises they can't keep... Everyone gets angry at how screwed up it all is, but by the time they've voted the Democrats out, people are now dependant on the programs, and they're never going away. Then the Republicans, being politicians, and thus incompetent fools, diddle around for a while until they've spent up all their trust and credibility, and the Democrats return for another round of reckless bleeding heart irresponsibility.

No, that’s a grand sweeping belief that has simply got nothing to do with the history of US politics.

It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing. It’s nonsense because you assume the GOP wastes it’s time in government while the DNC gets things done – US politics is more or less defined by the ineffectiveness of the Democrats. Its nonsense because you assume the history of the US in recent memory has been a move to the left – the last 20 years have been defined by neo-liberal policies and the dismantling of social systems.

I think you could be making some really interesting political observations, but you’ve got to give up on this left v right grand philosophy you keep falling into. It’s a line of thinking that will take you nowhere.

Phryxis wrote:It's a bad thing when that competition can run at a loss, and then simply take the difference out of taxpayer money. The free market doesn't work if it's not free. But, then, you can bet that the liberals will claim it was free, and pat themselves on the back for disproving free market efficiency.

Please reconcile this grand sweeping belief of yours with the Australian system, in which we have a public healthcare system that gives a basic level of free coverage and private insurers.

It is possible to have both, and your new system dosn't even offer the basic free care that ours does.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?

I think that's a point of confusion between a single payer system and a government option existing alongside private options. The latter can promote competition by giving a base level of care that private insurers have to improve upon to attract customers (as opposed to being complete bastards and knowing it doesn't matter because people don't have an alternative).

sebster wrote:No, that’s a grand sweeping belief that has simply got nothing to do with the history of US politics.

It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing. It’s nonsense because you assume the GOP wastes it’s time in government while the DNC gets things done – US politics is more or less defined by the ineffectiveness of the Democrats. Its nonsense because you assume the history of the US in recent memory has been a move to the left – the last 20 years have been defined by neo-liberal policies and the dismantling of social systems.

I think you could be making some really interesting political observations, but you’ve got to give up on this left v right grand philosophy you keep falling into. It’s a line of thinking that will take you nowhere.

To the point of government spending and irresponsibility, I found this thread from XKCD a pretty interesting read.

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=62370http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=62370

For those that want a summary, it calculates the share of the national debt given to each president (post war) for the budgetary year they were responsible for.

Final Tally:
Truman -7.4%
Eisenhower 0.0%
Kennedy 0.4%
Johnson 0.0%
Nixon 0.9%
Ford 1.0%
Carter -1.1%
Regan 18.4%
GHWB 10.5%
Clinton 3.7%
GWB 37.4%
Obama 13.4%

WWII: 22.7%
Democrats 9.0%
Republicans 68.3%

Interesting if nothing else.

Ahtman wrote:It's fall already? I thought it was still summer.

Lets get specific.
12 days left in July
15 days in August until the temperature breaks and the long slide to cooldown starts.
641 hours from point of writing.

In the words of the current flash in the pan club girl sing. TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

58 days until the end of Frazzled Hurricane Season, when storms typically steer north towards the East Coast.

Frazzled wrote:
In the words of the current flash in the pan club girl sing. TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

see more Acting Like Animals

..that's a reference I never thought I'd have seen made by you frazz !

mattyrm wrote:ugh.. my fething head.

Nobody answered my question regards potential nominess for the future, who do you guys envisage actually being able to challenge the dems?

My missus keeps saying Huckabee and Palin, but she is a bitter woman with a hearty dislike of her own country.

I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?

It just seems like the cupboards a bit bare to me.

Please they are losers the Dems would love to see.

Real possibilities:

Potentials:
Mitt Romney (most likely)
Chris Christie

outliers:
Bobby Jindal
Perry
somoebody nobody heard of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
In the words of the current flash in the pan club girl sing. TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

see more Acting Like Animals

..that's a reference I never thought I'd have seen made by you frazz !

Hey I'm just a hep cat.

focusedfire wrote:This cheesy bad story describes the U.S. and its people.

Anyone care to translate the story and its moral?

That Americans talk too much?

Seriously man, it's Monday morning and that story needed to be more to the point...

I can see Bill Clinton now:

"I had 2 terms, 5% unemployment, and a balanced budget. Miss me yet?"

I do. I really do.

Frazzled wrote:

Real possibilities:

Potentials:
Mitt Romney (most likely)
Chris Christie

outliers:
Bobby Jindal
Perry
somoebody nobody heard of.

I'd go for Colin Powell if he would ever run. We need another General as President.

I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.

Has she got no interest in the job or something?