Dean just made shit up again. On live TV.

[BzaDem]

He said that this bill will gut Vermont insurance regulation by allowing an insurance company in Texas to sell to Vermont under the regulations in Texas.

This is ONLY true (under this bill) if Vermont passes a LAW forming an interstate compact with Texas that allows this.

In other words, if Vermont wants to gut its own regulations by setting up a compact with Texas, it can do so. But insurance companies in Texas won't be able to sell to ONE CUSTOMER in Vermont unless Vermont passes a law that allows them to. Vermont of course would not do that with any state unless that state had similar regulations as Vermont.

The crazy part about this is that this is not even disputed among other people. Even most people against this bill aren't pretending that the bill will gut state regulations without the states in question allowing it to happen.

If Dean wants to attack this bill, there are plenty of REAL complaints that he should address. He should not continue making up false criticisms (or criticisms that are barely true, incomplete, and incredibly misleading without more information). This is ridiculous.

If people want to read Senator Debbie Stabenow's summary of the section in question, here it is.

http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

"Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State. By July 1, 2013, requires the Secretary, in consultation with NAIC, to issue regulations for interstate health care choice compacts, which can be entered into beginning in 2016. Under such compacts, qualified health plans could be offered in all participating States, but insurers would still be subject to the consumer protection laws of the purchaser’s State. Insurers would be required to be licensed in all participating States (or comply as if they were licensed), and to clearly notify consumers that a policy may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the purchaser’s State. Requires States to enact a law to enter into compacts and Secretarial approval, but only if the Secretary determines that the compact will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable, to at least a comparable number of residents, as this title would provide; and that it will not increase the Federal deficit or weaken enforcement of State consumer protection laws."

Emphasis added.

[lonestarnot]

1. Ackety, so let him he's the only one with any sense in the whole damn building.

[madokie]

33. You got that right

:hi:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

3. So, you've read the bill--been fully briefed on it..

You are so very certain, you must be an aide on the Hill? :shrug: I can't argue either way, because I haven't read the bill and I am not a lawyer... Even if I were, I'm not sure I'd be able to predict all the unintended consequences....

But, before I accused anyone of "making up shit," especially a dedicated liberal progressive like Dean, I'd be damned sure I was right.

[BzaDem]

5. I am not an aide and I do not work on the hill. I did read this section of the bill that is public.

I do not know any more than you do about the manager's amendment that is not yet public. But Dean doesn't either. Dean is talking about the publicly released bill, just like I am.

My job has nothing to do with politics. I just happen to be interested in learning as much about this as possible.

[havocmom]

22. You've read it? Great! You are all knowledge and no agenda then.

Provide link to part of the bill with the bearing on this discussion which backs up your assertion that Dean lies and you know it for a fact. Thanks so much.

[BzaDem]

41. Done (in the OP).

[Bluenorthwest]

23. What is your job?

I know Howard's job, and I trust him. I can also read. You, I do not know, nor trust, and like many others here, I've read enough of your propaganda to openly distrust your motives. I note you do not say what Industry you do work for.
If this were 'his word against yours' there is no question at all. Dean is a good man. I've seen nothing in any of your posts that indicates that you are. You seem to have a distinct agenda here. And no other interests at all. No context. All insurance, all the time.

[Owl]

64. Is that crickets or the sound of BzaDem?

[dgibby]

67. Hmm....

Question asked at 0805. It is now 1030. No response from op. Hmmmm...

Really makes me question motivation, especially since this is at least the 3rd Dean bashing op from this poster in the last 24hrs.

[Oilwellian]

24. If you did read this section of the bill...

Perhaps you could share a link of the exact page you're referring to. Thanks!

[BzaDem]

42. Done (see OP).

[hlthe2b]

25. and you know that Dean has no more access to information

than you or I? I find that hard to fathom, given Dean's connections... Seems you do NOT have sufficient justification for calling him out as "making things up," now do you?

On one thing we can agree... I want to learn as much about this as possible, but to do so, I will not ignore those who have represented us well in the past, but are now critical.

[cornermouse]

4. I don't know about this particular issue

But federal legislation supercedes state legislation every time. No exceptions.

[BzaDem]

7. Yes, if the federal legislation says it is overriding state regulation.

If Congress wants to override state legislation, it can do so with a stroke of the pen. That is absolutely true.

However, that is not what Congress is doing. Congress is saying that a state like Vermont can form a compact with a state like Texas, so companies in both states can sell plans to people in both states. But BOTH states would have to agree. Yes, Vermont could effectively gut its regulations by forming a compact with a low-regulation state like Texas, but Vermont would HAVE to agree to this first. (And if Vermont wanted to gut its regulations, it could do so right now under today's law.)

[BlueMTexpat]

9. As a rule, federal legislation sets minimum standards of behavior for all states.

If an individual state's standards are higher or better, they generally are not superseded.

[cornermouse]

29. You are right.

I stand corrected. However I don't really see how her statement can about gutting state legislation can be taken seriously.

[BlueMTexpat]

10. As a rule, federal legislation sets minimum standards of behavior for all states.

If an individual state's standards are higher or better, they generally are not superseded.

[BlueMTexpat]

74. Sorry, didn't see that this had posted twice until it was too late to edit.

[deminks]

6. Did you get that emailed to you this morning?

It is disputed by many people.

Buh bye now.

[BzaDem]

8. Why do you think that people who question motives but not substance are credible?

Seriously. When I read other's posts, I believe a post with substance over a post with nothing but personal attacks. I don't think most other people are that different.

[MadHound]

11. You know, I trust the word of somebody like Dean far more than that of some random poster

I imagine what Dean is talking about is how the bill would all interstate sale of insurance policies, which has been a conservative wet dream for years and decades. Apparently this bill is going to allow that, oh boy:eyes:

[BzaDem]

13. Except it isn't.

If you want to believe Dean, then go ahead. That doesn't make what Dean is saying any more true. If you ever read the appropriate section on the bill, you would know that. But I don't expect you to educate yourself.

[MadHound]

31. Oh but wait, there's more. What Dean and myself are saying is true

"Healthcare bills could jeopardize states' consumer protection laws

Opening the door for insurers to sell policies across state lines could allow health plans to avoid tougher requirements in places like California."

<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mandates16-2009nov16,0,3600032,full.story>

"The Senate health-care bill could enable insurers to avoid some of the strongest consumer protections and benefit requirements adopted by state governments, Democratic lawmakers from Maine and California say.

The bill would allow insurers to sell policies across state lines, subject to the laws and regulations in a state of the insurers' choosing, 31 Democratic House members said in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

"Practically speaking, insurers will domicile their plans in states with less stringent regulations and market to the population in more protective states like ours, just like nationally chartered banks have done," the House members led by Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) wrote on behalf of lawmakers from the two states.

The arrangement "will lead to a race to the bottom in insurance regulation and severely threaten the important and often lifesaving protections the residents of our states enjoy," the House members wrote."

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121603639.html?hpid=moreheadlines>

Speaking of educating one's self, I suggest that you do so before you continue to spew this bullshit that you're peddling. I suppose that you think that these thirty one Democrats are wrong or uneducated as well:eyes:

[BzaDem]

34. Just a tip: You should fully read your own articles before quoting them.

Just to make sure that you don't completely destroy your own argument by quoting an article that confirms my argument.

From the Washington post article:

"The lawmakers were referring to a provision allowing states to enter so-called interstate compacts for the sale of insurance."

That's right. In order for any of what you posted to happen, states would have to enact interstate compacts to gut their own regulations. Why would a state like Vermont enact a compact with Texas if it knows that would simply gut Vermont's regulations? Why wouldn't Vermont just do so today under current law?

I have not been saying that states can't enter into these compacts. I have been saying that they HAVE to enter into these compacts for any of the consequences to happen. Dean conveniently "forgot" to mention that. He made it sound like the law would immediately destroy Vermont's regulation, when in reality Vermont's permission is required.

And if you needed any more evidence, here is Debbie Stabenow's summary of the section in question.

http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State. By July 1, 2013, requires the Secretary, in consultation with NAIC, to issue regulations for interstate health care choice compacts, which can be entered into beginning in 2016. Under such compacts, qualified health plans could be offered in all participating States, but insurers would still be subject to the consumer protection laws of the purchaser’s State. Insurers would be required to be licensed in all participating States (or comply as if they were licensed), and to clearly notify consumers that a policy may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the purchaser’s State. Requires States to enact a law to enter into compacts and Secretarial approval, but only if the Secretary determines that the compact will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable, to at least a comparable number of residents, as this title would provide; and that it will not increase the Federal deficit or weaken enforcement of State consumer protection laws.

[MadHound]

37. And so the insurance industry does into each and every state legislature,

Spends a modicum of money (at least compared to what they're currently spending on this bill) to grease the palms of state legislators, and voila, states will enter into interstate compacts. If you don't think that will happen, and right quick, then you have absolutely no clue about how realpolitik works.

[BzaDem]

43. They could instead spend a "modicum of money" to gut all regulations directly

under today's bill.

This bill changes nothing in that respect. If a state wants to gut its own regulations, it can do so before and after this bill.

[MadHound]

44. So, you're not denying that states can, and will gut their own regulations

Thus you come into agreement with my position, and that of Dr. Dean. Congratulations, you just rationalized yourself around 180 degrees.

This bill will be a disaster for the US, for ordinary middle class and poor Americans. Are you ready to pay out twenty seven percent of your income for health care?

[BzaDem]

45. FOR THE THIRD TIME: If states want to gut their own regulations, they can do so TODAY.

This bill won't change that AT ALL. Dean is saying that this bill will change it. It won't. If a state wants to gut its own regulations, it can do so today without the bill.

[MadHound]

52. Yes, but this bill provides lots of incentive for states to gut their insurance regulation

Incentives that weren't there before. That is the thing that you are missing. With this bill, states will have lots of incentive in the form of new tax revenue, new businesses, etc. to gut their regulations. Lobbyists will descend on the states, providing even more incentives for the legislators to do so. And we the people will be screwed.

[BzaDem]

56. What new incentives? You are saying Vermont will collect sales tax on a plan sold in Texas?

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Vermont may not enter the compact

But my idiot-ass state, Arizona, will. In a hot second. As will every other run-by-morons Red state.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Jackie Speier was a proven brave Democrat

when I was still in grade school, before she was ever elected to any office, when she was just a very young aid to a Democratic Congressman. It takes one hell of a lot of standing in my world to question the honesty of Representative Speier.

[Kokonoe]

12. And give up their highway funds?

People forgot what states are a long time ago.

[BzaDem]

14. What the heck do highway funds have to do with anything?

Nothing in this bill threatens to take away highway funds if states don't do X or Y. Are you joking?

[Kokonoe]

17. A little joke

But I always hear that states will lose dollars from the the federal government if it does not conform.
Just politics

[elocs]

15. Correct or not, your big problem is that you dare to question a DU god.

HD is right up there with DK and KO concerning DU worship and adoration.
Naughty, naughty, naughty. :bounce:

[Le Taz Hot]

47. Sort of like Obama is to the apologists?

Like that? :eyes:

[elocs]

75. Yes, could be, could be. n/t

[H2O Man]

16. Busy day for you.

Maybe you could borrow a farmer's shit-spreader to ease your burden.

[OneGrassRoot]

21. .

:hug:

Hope you're feeling better and better. :)

The shit is pouring in from many directions these days at DU.

[charlie]

18. Dean and 31 Congressional representatives

...A key but lesser-known facet of the healthcare bills in the House and Senate would allow insurers to register in one state but sell policies in many other states as well.

That could allow insurers to ignore insurance laws in all but their home state and make it impossible for regulators in states with tough consumer protection laws to enforce them, a group of Democratic lawmakers says in a letter obtained by The Times.

Thirty-one House Democrats -- including 29 Californians -- are urging congressional leaders in the letter to abandon the provisions they say would gut hard-fought laws that protect consumers against insurer misdeeds in 17 states.
...

The bills also seek to provide consumer protections by establishing a federal benefits "floor." It would mandate an essential set of medical services that all policies would have to cover and other protections.

Opponents contend that consumers in many states could lose protections that go beyond what the bills would establish.

Consumers in California and some other states, for instance, could lose the ability to appeal treatment denials by insurers to panels of outside expert physicians, critics said. They also warned that policyholders could risk losing the protection of state laws that require insurance companies to pay for a wide range of treatments, including HIV testing and reconstructive surgery for breast cancer patients.

The provisions "will lead to a race to the bottom in insurance regulation and severely threaten the important and often lifesaving protections the residents of our states enjoy," the lawmakers from California and Maine said in the letter sent Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insure17-2009dec17,0,2204157.story

[BzaDem]

26. All of that is true IF states enter into interstate compacts with no-regulation states.

Vermont entering into an interstate compact with Texas would of course gut Vermont regulations. But the point is Vermont will never do that, since they are not stupid, and they know that entering into such a compact will gut their own regulations. If states wanted to gut their own regulations, they could do so today with no bill.

Here is a Washington Post article about this very subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121603639.html

A quote:

"The lawmakers were referring to a provision allowing states to enter so-called interstate compacts for the sale of insurance."

States. Not insurance companies. Insurance companies cannot sell across state lines unless the state with the regulations lets them.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. 31 House Democrats

including many who have liberal history going back to when I was in grade school, plus Howard Dean, vs a guy on the internet with an agenda. A guy who avoids direct questions. Vs dozens of elected Democrats some of whom I actually know. Vs some guy who works in a mystery field. A guy who refuses to give context to his claims of knowledge. A one note poster vs many, many proven entities.

[fasttense]

19. So what?

I don't care if Dean failed to put in that states have to agree to screw their citizens. It's still a much more likely outcome when the bill passes than if the bill does not pass.

But the bottom line to this regressive bill is the mandate. The mandate turns all the good into just so much hogwash. Because the bill will force every man, woman and child to pay corporations that have proven time and time again, that they would rather see us all die than spend some of their precious profits.

At least now I can cancel my insurance and stop paying a bunch of thieves when the premiums become to much of a burden. But with the mandate, I can't even do that without a tax, fine or imprisonment.

[BzaDem]

36. How is it a more likely outcome?

It might be likely that Vermont makes an interstate compact with a similarly heavily regulated state. That would probably be a good thing.

But why in the world would it be any more likely that Vermont makes an interstate compact with a low-regulated state like Texas? If it wanted to gut its own regulations, why wouldn't it just do so directly?

[DeltaLitProf]

20. When you post something like this . . .

. . . you really do need to include the section of the bill you are working from. Why you haven't done that already is beyond me.

[BzaDem]

32. Here is Stabenow's summary of the section in question for those who don't like legalese.

http://stabenow.senate.gov/healthcare/Patient_protection_section.pdf

"Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State. By July 1, 2013, requires the Secretary, in consultation with NAIC, to issue regulations for interstate health care choice compacts, which can be entered into beginning in 2016. Under such compacts, qualified health plans could be offered in all participating States, but insurers would still be subject to the consumer protection laws of the purchaser’s State. Insurers would be required to be licensed in all participating States (or comply as if they were licensed), and to clearly notify consumers that a policy may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the purchaser’s State. Requires States to enact a law to enter into compacts and Secretarial approval, but only if the Secretary determines that the compact will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable, to at least a comparable number of residents, as this title would provide; and that it will not increase the Federal deficit or weaken enforcement of State consumer protection laws."

Emphasis added.

[DeltaLitProf]

39. There it is. You're right. Dean is exaggerating this.

n/t

[Kokonoe]

54. It ''Requires States to enact a law to enter into compacts"

Thats a barn door of a loop hole. How do we know what a forced new law is or isn't.

[BzaDem]

57. How is that a loophole? It requires states to enact a law if they want a compact.

[Kokonoe]

68. The terms of a required new law leaves open any legislation

presently on the table. Hence its all a loophole.

[AllentownJake]

27. Here comes the DLC to shill

Dean said before he said that, I just heard the final version will include this.

[laughingliberal]

28. Well, I'm not sure but I think this was the precise reason the Republicans pushed to allow them to

sell across state lines and Dean is not the first source from whom we have heard the warning on this.. I was most distressed when I found out this made it into the bill.

[madrchsod]

30. i guess the check cleared......

[laughingliberal]

35. Here's a link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121603639.html?hpid=topnews

By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 17, 2009; 12:42 AM
The Senate health-care bill could enable insurers to avoid some of the strongest consumer protections and benefit requirements adopted by state governments, Democratic lawmakers from Maine and California say.

The bill would allow insurers to sell policies across state lines, subject to the laws and regulations in a state of the insurers' choosing, 31 Democratic House members said in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

"Practically speaking, insurers will domicile their plans in states with less stringent regulations and market to the population in more protective states like ours, just like nationally chartered banks have done," the House members led by Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) wrote on behalf of lawmakers from the two states.

[onenote]

38. interesting selection of paragraphs that you quote. And don't quote

For example, you left out the following paragraph from the same article:

First, states could join interstate compacts only by enacting a state law. Thus, if a state government jeopardized its own insurance regulations by entering a compact, it would be by choice. That could pave the way for future lobbying battles in state capitals.

[laughingliberal]

46. Guess what? I almost just posted the link and then changed my mind and copied a couple of paragraghs

I made no editorial decisions at all.

[BzaDem]

40. This is the third time this article has come up in this thread. That very article confirms my point.

From your article:

"The lawmakers were referring to a provision allowing states to enter so-called interstate compacts for the sale of insurance."

In other words, states would have to AGREE to cut their own regulations. That is exactly what I am saying.

[HelenWheels]

51. For a money they would do it

You can bet a lot of states would cut their regulations if the insurance companies cough up the dough. Dean is right. This entire bill should be killed.

[BzaDem]

58. They could cut their regulations now if they wanted to. That criticism has NOTHING to do with

this bill.

[pinto]

48. I think the confusion, at least for me, is here ->

"Sec. 1333....but insurers would still be subject to the consumer protection laws of the purchaser’s State. Insurers would be required to be licensed in all participating States (or comply as if they were licensed), and to clearly notify consumers that a policy may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the purchaser’s State."

does "subject to consumer protection laws" mean *subject to insurance regulations of the purchaser's State*? Those may be two different things, as the last sentence quoted above would imply.

One may mean basic consumer protection standards, i.e. truth in advertising, full disclosure, etc. etc. While the other may mean the actual nut and bolts of a policy under regulations.

:shrug: It's confusing ~ pinto

(ed for spell)

[MissDeeds]

50. They always kill the messenger

Nice try.

[sybylla]

55. You'll have to clarify something for me.

I'm trying to figure out how a state being required to enter into compacts that allow for the sale of insurance policies that "may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the purchaser’s State" is not gutting a state's own insurance regulations.

We had this happen with the credit card industry. The big players all went to states with the most favorable regulation and laws under which to operate and thus, Delaware has become home to the credit card industry in the US.

You think the same thing won't happen to insurance?

Seems to me Dr. Dean was speaking the truth once again.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

60. A state is not required to enter into a compact. A state is required to enact a law IF IT WANTS to

enter into a compact.

The credit card industry is completely different. Right now, some bank in Nebraska can sell to anyone in New York, even if New York wants nothing to do with that bank.

In this case, an insurance company in Nebraska will NOT be able to sell to a SINGLE PERSON in New York unless New York enacts a law out of both of its houses and signed by its governor that permits Nebraska to.

The only compacts that are going to be enacted by states are those that form compacts between states with similar regulations. There is no incentive for any state to do otherwise, unless they want to gut their own regulations, which they could do today even without this bill.

Dean is acting like this is the former situation, where states don't need to enact laws to permit this interstate selling. He specifically said that as soon as this law is enacted, Vermont's regulation will be gone because of this. THAT IS FALSE. It is only gone if Vermont enacts a law that allows another state with lower regulations to sell to it.

[sybylla]

70. The credit card industry is not completely different.

Before deregulation (thank you Reagan and Bush I) each state had its own regulations and credit card companies were subject to regulation and oversight in each state. Now, they are only subject to the regulations and oversight of the state in which they reside.

So a compact that allows an insurance company to operate under the laws and regulations of another state undermines that state's own regulations. There is nothing in what was quoted in the original post to specify that only those states with similar regulations would enact compacts so it seems to me that element of your argument is false.

And there are always incentives to gut regulation, especially in the guise of "opening up the market" and creating the illusion of "choice" - it's called contributions to Republicans and moderate Dems.

Now, I haven't heard Dean say that if you pass this bill, Vermont's regulations will be gone, but it seems to me to be a fair conclusion given that corporations love races to the bottom when it comes to regulation. Perhaps you can point me to the interview/forum where Dean said that.

[walldude]

61. Gee, judging from all the posts you have made defending this

piece of shit someone may start to thing you are a fucking troll. When Dean does attack the bad shit in this bill you attack him for that as well. Nice Republican strategy.

PLease be my guest and bend the fuck over for your "reform", just quit asking me to do the same.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

63. Recommended, for what it's worth.

This place has seriously jumped the shark when someone points out the truth and gets called a troll.

[eilen]

65. As it may be written, how does it look in the real world?

How does this translate into practice? Will companies flock to other states that have less restrictions, leaving states with tighter restrictions so that the states have no other choice but to accept less stringent regulations in order to have options for their citizens to be insured?

Kind of how ins. co. predicted that people would flock to the public option and not purchase private plans?

Now that there is no public option... seems like the insurance companies can fix the game however they wish.

Now if the bill included federal regulations that superseded all state regulations that matched the highest regulated state-- then I might start believing the government really gives a shit about its citizens getting access to healthcare. Currently, my belief is that the government is only concerned about protecting ins. company profits and their own campaign contributions.

[SIMPLYB1980]

66. K&R

And the Dean people just say So What. :rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

69. I'm recommending this thread just for your courage in calling out Dean, who I love, but....

Everyone is wrong once in a while.

In fact, I myself decided to be wrong about something.

Just to see what it felt like. :P

[Ignis]

72. You don't think (R)s and many (D)s will fall over themselves...

...to appear "business friendly" by passing just such bills at the state level?

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

73. Maybe he's just playing chess?

:shrug: