It bans the worst business practices immediately & it covers those who need it the most immediately

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

It was FAR MORE and better than I expected and it IS change that I can get behind.

As far as it being a "bail-out" I disagree. President Obama left our "uniquely American" structure in place but stripped out most of the hideous, wretched, immoral, should be illegal and soon will be, practices.

The insurance companies will definitely see an erosion of their blood money profits based on the pain, suffering and bankruptcy of our fellow citizens and they will have to run some tight ships in the future if they want to see any profits. Say goodbye to the gazillion dollar CEO bonuses! I believe it WILL introduce some actual competition into the system with the exchanges. There IS a public option, and it could be a roadmap to the future if the private industry is unable to survive given their new regulated and competitive world.

You guys KNOW I rail about incrementalism and corporate greed and excess and the asinine system we have in place - honestly, if President Obama's guidelines satisfied me, they really ought to be able to satisfy almost anyone.

My greatest fear at the moment is that the completely livable and feasible guidelines he spoke of will be eroded in conference. But NOW we have a benchmark - we have our President's own guidelines and I suggest we hold him AND the Congress to deliver those guidelines at the MINIMUM.

[ixion]

1. And screws individual citizens across the board, while providing windfalls for insurance cos

great. :sarcasm:

[TransitJohn]

2. It continues the worst part of the system

Medicine will remain for-profit at all costs. Human lives be damned.

[vi5]

3. The one question I have....

.....I'm totally in favor of things like ending the pre-existing condition exemption, recission, etc....and I think those things are just as important as the Public Option.....but I've seen nothing with regard to what the penalties will be, how it will be enforced, what the recourse will be for individuals that have this happen, etc.

[blueworld]

4. I must respectfully disagree. It is snake oil. n/t

[YOY]

5. It's not really addressing the disease. It addresses the symptoms.

To put it in a very apt metaphor.

Sure it may help but it's not stopping the disease and may very well be letting it flourish further.

[jeffbr]

6. A good start, but still a Band-Aid that legitimizes the for-profit heath insurance industry

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. But it will not end Insurance Company Death Panels. Ins companies will still be able to dictate to

patients and doctors what care will be provided.

[jeffbr]

8. Exactly. There won't be government death panels to compete with the insurance company death panels

[YOY]

13. Do you need a sarcasm smiley?

Because what you said sounds really mindblowingly ignorant without one.

[NYCGirl]

10. And what about all that "cannot turn anyone down due to pre-existing

conditions" or the "no caps on coverage" didn't you hear?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you

"And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."
(Applause.)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. And that will be regulated how? By the time mediation happens you can die.

He didn't say that it will be against the law for insurance companies to challenge doctor's decisions. He made it clear on pre-existing conditions and caps, but not on this.

[closeupready]

9. Personally, I was underwhelmed. This is not real reform.

We've already compromised too much with the losers on the other side.

[Statistical]

11. Why would CEO lose their bonuses?

If excluding worst practices cost more they will simply raise prices.

Same profit for shareholders, same bonuses for executives, higher premiums for consumers.

[Igel]

22. Isn't that "increasing competition" and

"controlling costs"?

Then again, it requires that young, healthy people--those saving for a house, for marriage, paying off their car and student loans--purchase insurance. I know I could have afforded it when I was in my 20s, but I wouldn't have liked it at all. But it's needed--essentially a separate tax system to spread the risk and wealth.

The entire discussion is fraught with nasty trade-offs and compromises. We simplify at our own risk. May I coin the word "simplisticize"? No? Perhaps that's for the best.

[laughingliberal]

24. Section 116 of HR3200 requires the insurance companies

to meet medical loss ratios. They must spent a specified amount of the money they collect in premiums on paying for care or they must rebate the difference to the policy holders.

[Tansy_Gold]

12. "Immediately" does not mean immediately

The bill has to be written, sent to congress, voted on, compromised, conferenced, and then signed into law. Biden said it could be written by Thanksgiving.

That ain't "immediately" in my pre-existing book.




TG

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. Right. OK., for the overly literal "immediately upon passage of the bill."

Do you prefer to have something to look forward to or nothing to look forward to?

Since you have a pre-existing condition, I personally would think that you would be happy that the cavalry is coming over the mountain. If that's not soon enough for you, I don't know what other alternative would be.

[Tansy_Gold]

18. The cavalry may be coming but

what are they going to do?

if they run right over my homestead on their way to slaughter the indigenous people, that ain't helpin' me none.

What Obama gave last night was a sketch of his idea of what the bill oughta be like. It's way short on details. It leaves some things open to interpretation, including "immediately."

If the public option, for instance, has to be self-funding, then the people who pay into it aren't going to be able to get anything out of it until some funds have been accumulated.

A number of years ago, I worked for a company that self-funded its employees' health coverage. it wa cheaper for them to do that -- they had various restrictions on who was covered and who wasn't -- than to pay an insurance company for a policy. They then paid another company just to do the adnimistrative stuff. The admin company could NOT reject claims on the basis of health, but only on various administrative grounds. When there wasn't enough money in the pot to pay out claims, the company had to kick in more. They had a big claim -- an employee's baby was born prematurely due to an auto accident and there were horrendous bills. The company had to cough it up.

The Obama version of Public Option isn't "public" at all. There is no taxing authority to fund it. All it is is a pool. And because it's going to be utilized by people who can't get other affordable insurance, they're going to need a lot of money to fund it. My PECs are minor and easily managed, though they do keep me from getting affordable insurance. But what happens to people with serious health maintenance issues and costs? A child with asthma? An injury that requires years of corrective surgery and therapy? It's one thing when a big insurance company covers it, with their investments and deep pockets. it's another when it's essentially a co-op and all the contributors have to cover it.

The Obama cavalry are coming to the "rescue" of the insurance companies. He's giving them four years -- after the passage of the bill -- to do whatever it is. They will no doubt raise all their rates to cover for the bad risks they're going to have to take on. I mean, c'mon, do you really think Aetna is going to carry a 45-year-old someone with a congenital heart defect at the same rate they give a 19-year-old in perfect health?

One thing I suspect you'll see is rates raised on group policies. I watched my COBRA go from $273/month in Jan. 06 to $335 by March '08. The same policy is now over $400, and that's for an individual; family rate is over twice that. The company pays half of the individual's coverage, but the worker has to pay the other half plus all of his/her family coverage. Watch those rates go higher and higher and higher, because many employers can't afford not to cover their employees. (That's another long story.)

There's an easy way to implement a real public option: increase FICA taxes .10 percent. one-tenth of one percent. One penny out of every $10 from the worker, another from the employer. That's what, a dollar for every $1000 you make? then apply FICA to ALL income, earned and unearned. Self employment. Rental properties. then open Medicare to everyone.

The increase in the Medicare bureaucracy would absorb many of the clerical and administrative workers now engaged in the insurance industry. Also absorbed would be state Medicaid offices.

The ones who would be hurt would be the fat cats at the top of the insurance company hierarchies. They've got more than enough to see them through to retirement and Social Security.


Tansy Gold, who thinks there should always be simple solutions

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. I completely agree with you that a public option should be publicly funded

and I see it as a saftey net exactly the way that Medicare and Social Security are safety nets.

Schumer was the first guy I noted who said the public option had to be self-sufficent and self-funding from premiums and I saw it at that time as a very cynical way to offer a public option that would die in the cradle. But, even Schumer said that it would require start-up funding from the government. I think it is up to the Congress, hopefully the Progressive caucus, to beef up the public option outlined by the President. I think President Obama is simply trying to deflect attention from the public option at this point and passing the baton onto Congress.

It has already become evident this morning that the Republican die is cast. They are obstructionists and most likely will have little to no participation in the bill except for voting against it. Lindsey Graham said as much when he called the President "combative".

I am looking for Congress to take the President's guidelines, improve where possible, and deliver the very best bill they are capable of delivering.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. Congress will only compromise downward, not upward

They will water it down further, making it as bad as if not worse than the current situation.

Obama should be leading, not giving something to Congress and expecting them to beef it up.

I'm tempted to say he's done more for the people of Cuba -- lifting restrictions on relatives' travel, etc. -- than he has done for health care in the U.S.



TG

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. Well, we'll just have to say that we see the potential very differently. nt

[Tansy_Gold]

23. Wall Street sees it as nothing but good for the ins. Cos. n/t

[Orsino]

25. Or "whenever Congress says the effective dates are."

I am glad to hear that some cavalry are going to be leaving the fort someday soon. If more people are covered more completely for less money, I will welcome that as very real reform. The more, the better. The sooner, the even better.