Bike Shops
Coaches
Fitters
Race Calendar
*NEW* Running Stores
Stack & Reach
Training Log
Triathlon Clubs
MAIN
INDEX
RULES &
LEGEND
LOG
IN
Search
this forum
this category
all forums
for
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
(
options
)
Newsletter Signup
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Lavender Room
:
WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever"
1
2
3
View All
Tri Forum
Classifieds
Lavender Room
Jobs
The Womens
Print Thread
jar1635
Nov 3, 09 9:56
Post #51 of 69 (199 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [SwBkRn44]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
The next time the democrats are at risk for being out of power is in November of 2010....so, by your reasoning - they have to pass a bill, and pass it NOW, because they are going to (possibly) be out of the drivers seat 12 months from now.
I don't recall advocating that they wait until November, but I think it's reasonable to expect that they could give all members of congress and the public the time to read the bill, should they so desire. Whether that is 1, 2 or 4 weeks - who knows.
big kahuna
Nov 3, 09 9:56
Post #52 of 69 (198 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [slowbern]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Now, now girls. Y'all need to be reasoned and logical in your disputations. Like me :-)
T.
Cavechild
Nov 3, 09 9:59
Post #53 of 69 (194 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [SwBkRn44]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Quote:
I understand the sense of urgency the supporters of this bill are feeling.
But since the bill doesn't take effect until 2013, over 3 years from now. Shouldn't there be some time for the American people to look at the bill? Not to mention do you know how many people are going to die from lack of insurance over the next 3 years? Just saying if it's so importaint......
sphere
Nov 3, 09 10:12
Post #54 of 69 (188 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [big kahuna]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Not to be outdone, the house repubs offer their
own
Worst Bill Ever--healthcare "reform" that allows for exclusion based on pre-existing conditions (and likely all the post hoc trickery it entails), with emphasis on that magical 0.5% savings from tort reform.
At least they're consistent.
Irrigation stops a smelt's beating heart
jar1635
Nov 3, 09 11:10
Post #55 of 69 (170 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [sphere]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I guess I don't understand why insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to exclude for pre-existing conditions. As I heard one analogy, it would be like getting fire insurance while your house is burning.
I understand that their are situations where one might be forced out of their current coverage (job loss, etc.), and if they have a pre-existing condition - then they are screwed. But, why not just address those specific situations...expanding and lowering the cost of COBRA.
can you help me understand why it's so critical that insurance companies be required to do this?
big kahuna
Nov 3, 09 11:14
Post #56 of 69 (170 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [sphere]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Unless you have an individual mandate, which may be unconstitutional and is extremely unpopular at any rate, you're not going to be able to cover preexisting conditions. No insurance company will go for it because there won't be a wide enough pool to foot the bill for all those who'll seek coverage either when they become sick or when they already have something and are trying to find new insurance for one reason or another. And as far as making the government an insurer of first choice -- outside or what already goes on in the rapidly-going-bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid systems -- almost no politician is going to want to walk that electoral plank. Not with the 2010 elections coming on.
No individual mandate = no preexisting condition. Can't have your cake and eat it, too, in this instance.
T.
sphere
Nov 3, 09 11:51
Post #57 of 69 (156 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [jar1635]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
can you help me understand why it's so critical that insurance companies be required to do this?
How will expanding and lowering the cost of COBRA provide access for those pre-existing cases currently?
If there are no alternative plans (like a public option) for someone with a pre-existing condition to turn to, it should be required for every obvious reason. And yes, it would come at our expense, as it must.
From the insurers' standpoint, it doesn't make sense, which is why the insurer-as-primary-payor system is inherently flawed to begin with. The same people are getting squeezed out, for the very same reasons, if the repub plan (as summarized) were to take effect.
Irrigation stops a smelt's beating heart
chainpin
Nov 3, 09 12:09
Post #58 of 69 (146 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [jar1635]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To:
I guess I don't understand why insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to exclude for pre-existing conditions. As I heard one analogy, it would be like getting fire insurance while your house is burning.
I understand that their are situations where one might be forced out of their current coverage (job loss, etc.), and if they have a pre-existing condition - then they are screwed. But, why not just address those specific situations...expanding and lowering the cost of COBRA.
can you help me understand why it's so critical that insurance companies be required to do this?
I'll tell you why.
It is because these politicians and other liberal minded--think with your heart, not your head--liberals, have no grounding in economic reality.
They think the healthcare business doesn't abide by the same laws of economics as any other business.
They think healthcare service is unique and somehow different then other service based business.
Why this is so, I do not know.
We know that the insurance companies are below average in terms of profitability.
We also know that this below average profitability has been achieved in part by actively managing underwriting risk.
Some on the Left would say that the insurance companies are too aggressive in underwriting--refusing to underwrite high risk patients for example.
Suppose this is true, yet, these companies are STILL only earning below average profits.
Take Humana, they earn 2.5% net margins, that means that on a year over year basis if cost go up 2.5% and pricing stays flat--all else equal--then the companies profit margin would be zero.
Without the ability to exclude for pre-existing conditions, insurance companies would go out of business.
The fire analogy is exactly right--you know your going to have to pay big and take a loss, it's just how big.
But alas, such simply concepts are lost on most of the Left.
"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06
big kahuna
Nov 3, 09 12:19
Post #59 of 69 (135 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [sphere]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
And yes, it would come at our expense, as it must.
Redistributing my wealth again, I see ;-)
T.
jar1635
Nov 3, 09 12:27
Post #60 of 69 (128 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [sphere]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
How will expanding and lowering the cost of COBRA provide access for those pre-existing cases currently?
In the scenario that I mentioned. If you have a condition, and lose your current coverage due to job loss (for example). You are then in a scenario where you a looking for coverage with a pre-existing condition. Right? What is the stop-gap for people that lose their job and, subsequently, their health insurance? COBRA.
In what scenario is someone with a pre-existing condition being denied coverage? Did they not already have insurance? Did their insurer drop them for a reason?
How does someone with a pre-existing condition end up in a situation where they need insurance? If they lost their previous coverage through no fault of their own, then "yes" the government should provide a stop-gap...if the answer is "they didn't have insurance in the first place" well, then, they are on their own.
Who are these "same people" you refer to?
sphere
Nov 3, 09 12:27
Post #61 of 69 (128 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [chainpin]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I'll tell you why. It is because these politicians and other liberal minded--think with your heart, not your head--liberals, have no grounding in economic reality. They think the healthcare business doesn't abide by the same laws of economics as any other business. They think healthcare service is unique and somehow different then other service based business. Why this is so, I do not know.
I'm fairly certain most on the left understand the economics and rationale, your omniscience notwithstanding. Most Liberals would prefer a single payor system precisely
because of
the necessary constraints of the for-profit insurer/provider structure that's in place currently, but would settle for a public option if necessary.
Irrigation stops a smelt's beating heart
(This post was
edited
by sphere on Nov 3, 09 12:37)
sphere
Nov 3, 09 12:36
Post #62 of 69 (122 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [jar1635]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
if the answer is "they didn't have insurance in the first place" well, then, they are on their own.
You can't imagine a scenario where hard-working people--many of whom are self-employed--find themselves without access to affordable insurance, ineligible for Medicaid or Medicare, when an unexpected illness or injury strikes? Or is it that you know this is a common occurrence, but don't feel that it's anyone else's problem to worry about?
There is an ideological divide here that no amount of debate will reconcile: either you think these people should receive assistance, or, as you say, they're on their own.
Irrigation stops a smelt's beating heart
sphere
Nov 3, 09 12:56
Post #63 of 69 (109 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [big kahuna]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Redistributing my wealth again, I see ;-)
Every chance I get. Do you have a paypal account?
Irrigation stops a smelt's beating heart
saltman
Nov 3, 09 13:08
Post #64 of 69 (98 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [sphere]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To:
I'll tell you why. It is because these politicians and other liberal minded--think with your heart, not your head--liberals, have no grounding in economic reality. They think the healthcare business doesn't abide by the same laws of economics as any other business. They think healthcare service is unique and somehow different then other service based business. Why this is so, I do not know.
I'm fairly certain most on the left understand the economics and rationale, your omniscience notwithstanding. Most Liberals would prefer a single payor system precisely
because of
the necessary constraints of the for-profit insurer/provider structure that's in place currently, but would settle for a public option if necessary.
Correct. chainpin, finds himself out of his league........again.
FJB
Nov 3, 09 13:16
Post #65 of 69 (92 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [saltman]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Correct. chainpin, finds himself out of his league........again.
But he does have a good grounding in economic reality, unlike all the stupid Democrats.
Cavechild
Nov 3, 09 13:18
Post #66 of 69 (90 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [sphere]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Quote:
Most Liberals would prefer a single payor system precisely
because of
the necessary constraints of the for-profit insurer/provider structure that's in place currently, but would settle for a public option if necessary.
I guess the follow-up question is why would the liberals support this bill, given the fact that it will still leave 12,000,000 million Americans uninsured?
chainpin
Nov 3, 09 13:29
Post #67 of 69 (80 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [saltman]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I'll tell you why. It is because these politicians and other liberal minded--think with your heart, not your head--liberals, have no grounding in economic reality. They think the healthcare business doesn't abide by the same laws of economics as any other business. They think healthcare service is unique and somehow different then other service based business. Why this is so, I do not know.
I'm fairly certain most on the left understand the economics and rationale, your omniscience notwithstanding. Most Liberals would prefer a single payor system precisely
because of
the necessary constraints of the for-profit insurer/provider structure that's in place currently, but would settle for a public option if necessary.
Correct. chainpin, finds himself out of his league........again.
Your fairly certain huh?
Most liberals prefer a single payer system because they have a fundamental--and misguided--belief that healthcare is a right--they don't give a rats ass about the economics.
These are the same people that think that Exon controls the global market for oil and can create profits out of thin air.
Liberals have a long history of flaunting their economic illiteracy:
Minimum wage laws
Rent Control laws
Farm Subsidies...and on and on.
They codifiy these idiotic and ass backwards economic policies into law, despite the overwhelming evidence that they don't work as intended.
Look at cash for clunkers--a timely example of the Left's fucktard like approach to economic policy.
Used car prices have spiked through the roof because of this program, thus, hurting the same people that Dems claim to be looking out for.
Anyone in the market for an affordable used car better go back to their piggy banks.
Also, loan to value ratios are now fucked up, making financing harder to get...and on it goes.
A complete debacle is this cash for clunkers, on so many levels.
It's simply another example of the Left's pathetic attempt at understanding basic economics and the law of unintended consequences.
"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06
saltman
Nov 3, 09 13:42
Post #68 of 69 (74 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [Cavechild]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To:
Quote:
Most Liberals would prefer a single payor system precisely
because of
the necessary constraints of the for-profit insurer/provider structure that's in place currently, but would settle for a public option if necessary.
I guess the follow-up question is why would the liberals support this bill, given the fact that it will still leave 12,000,000 million Americans uninsured?
ummmm.......if "this bill" is in reference to the current bill...there are many that wouldn't including myself and I am not even that liberal. "This bill" is nowhere near single payer, its a turd I hope gets flushed.
jar1635
Nov 3, 09 14:33
Post #69 of 69 (63 views)
Re: WSJ Calls new House Healthcare Bill "Worst Bill Ever" [sphere]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
find themselves without access to affordable insurance, ineligible for Medicaid or Medicare, when an unexpected illness or injury strikes?
No, I can imagine a scenario - please enlighten me. Tell me how someone finds themselves in a position where they are shopping for coverage with a pre-existing condition. A scenario other than the one that I previously stated the government should provide protection for (losing your job/coverage, or just losing your coverage through no fault of your own).
How are they without insurance
before
an unexpected illness or injury strikes? Is it because they - whether self-employed or not - chose not to purchase health insurance because it was too costly?
I pay far too much for health insurance for a family of 5; insurance that we rarely use. We are healthy and very rarely go to the doctor's. The insurance is there for when the inevitable or unfortunate strikes. Do I like paying for it? No. Do I wish I had that money for other purposes? Yes. Would I chance going without it? Hell no.
I still don't understand how someone in this country can be without health insurance...unless it's by choice. You are either (a) poor enough to qualify for government programs, (b) smart enough to suck it up and spend the money so that when the day comes you have the coverage you need, or (c) stupid enough to put yourself and your family at risk because you didn't want to get coverage for one reason or another.
You have yet to tell me why you think insurers must provide coverage for people without insurance and pre-existing conditions. I'm not asking you to defend your position, just tell me why.
1
2
3
View All
Print Thread
MAIN
RULES &
LOG
