The Trillion Dollar Wealth Transfer (Health Reform Part 1 of 4)

[Political Heretic]

(NOTE: - the original source contains hyperlinked text linking to additional resources and references. Please click on the link below for full review.)

Link:http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2010/03/trillion-dollar-wealth-transfer-health.html">The Trillion Dollar Wealth Transfer (Health Reform Part 1 of 4)

By Political Heretic
March 18, 2010

“Sadly, we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true healthcare reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the chokehold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations.” - Karen Higgins, Co-President, National Nurses United

When Americans elected Barack Obama President in 2008, along with a large majority in both the House and Senate, there was a feeling among a majority of the people that a long national nightmare of inadequate and exploitative health insurance would soon be over. Now, over a year later it is clear to a plurality of Americans that the nightmare has only just begun.

The political push for health reform quickly degenerated in to a push for insurance reform. The two are not the same, in fact they are nearly mutually exclusive. Barack Obama kicked off the process by taking any discussion of a single payer insurance system off the table. This despite the fact that a single payer system, especially a Medicare-for-all buy in, would be cheaper and more effective.

Shortly thereafter, the one and only true cost-containment mechanism proposed in any variant of reform legislation – a competitive public option – was tabled. This despite the fact that Barack Obama promised the American people any bill he signed must include a public option. Political rhetoric about the public option rose and fell over the next several months, due in large part to the fact that over seventy-five percent of Americans wanted a public option to be part of health reform.

Sources within the White House now confirm that the same Barack Obama made a backroom deal with for-profit hospital lobbyists to kill the Public Option. This makes it readily apparent that politicians in Washington desired to appear as if they were “fighting hard” for a public option while ultimately having no intention of ever implementing such a plan.

Today, the most salient feature of this insurance reform legislation (this Blog will appropriately call “health reform” legislation by its accurate name) is the trillion dollar transfer of wealth from American families to the insurance industry projected over the next ten years. The creation of the individual mandate gave insurers precisely what they have always dreamed about: a captive market exponentially larger than anything they have had before.

Americans will be forced by law to pay private insurance companies out of pocket whether they want to or not. Families will be forced to pay an industry that makes its money by denying claims, illegitimately cancelling policies, raising premiums, charging double, triple or up to four times (in some circumstances) the standard rates for people who have one of any number of “special circumstances.” All totaling a one trillion dollar (literally 940 billion at last CBO estimate) insurance bonanza. How could the insurance industry be any happier?

And yet, there has never been a more ambitious spin campaign than the one undertaken to rebrand this insurance industry hand-out as “health reform.” Supporters of insurance reform argue that the Insurance Industry’s past public opposition to the legislation is indication that the bill does not benefit them. Such a claim reflects a dangerously naive lack of understanding of how lobbying works.

It is in the best interests of the Insurance industry to spend a fraction of its multi-billion dollars on a campaign against any reform legislation. Why? Because it puts them in a position to win compromises from the White House, which is exactly what happened. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and for-profit hospitals won all sorts of concessions over the last year including special exemptions, removal of language that would have regulated drug pricing, the elimination of any public plan competition, weakening of federal oversight, etc.

There is no reason for them not to keep pushing public opposition when doing so has won them private concessions month after month after month through this process. Privately however, industry insiders tell a completely different story. “We win!” wrote one such insider, according to Politico.com.

And why shouldn’t they celebrate? Their strategy of public opposition and private lobbying and negotiation has delivered to their bank accounts nearly a trillion dollars every ten years. With millions of new customers and little to no regulatory oversight on Insurance’s ability to raise rates, limit services or deny/cancel coverage, business is about to boom.

The insurance industry is too smart to stake everything on one outcome. Thanks to their strategy, if insurance reform passes, they win. If it does not pass, they win.

The rest of us lose.

Coming Soon:

Part 2 – The Facade of Reform
Part 3 – The High Cost of Reform
Part 4 – Is Something Really Better than Nothing?

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K&R

[berni_mccoy]

2. The opinion of one blogger on the internet. For a real study on wealth transfer, see:

http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/product.jsp?id=57449

A devastating report that shows how the middle class will be devastated due to health care costs IF HCR ISN'T PASSED NOW.

[Dragonfli]

4. Then Why Don't We Do That? Pass HCR instead of Insurance reform (with very little reform)?

I wish we could get health care reform. Insurance doesn't provide care, My wife died because of an insurance death panel.
So I know first hand insurance mostly means "find a way NOT to provide care". For a man that appears intelligent, I don't get how you are so damn dense concerning this easily observable fact.

Really, I just don't get the density - at all.

[Egnever]

7. So you totally discount the new regulations in this bill?

As if they are not there?

[Dragonfli]

14. Nothing in this bill will make them provide care using the same tricks they use now.

It is a gift to the lobbyists - no more.
They stalled an operation knowing full well that there was a very tight window between the end of chemo to build up strength, and the operation to remove the breast cancer in my wife. The oncologist told me it was planned very carefully, they stalled for three months AFTER that window before finally allowing the surgery. In that time the tumor that had been reduced in size by half, had quadrupled and spread to the chest wall during their "review" (remember chemo was suspended awaiting the surgery and nothing else was being done to keep it in check).

What in this INSURANCE bill affects that kind of control over health CARE decisions that are made for profit?
If you need to be educated regarding many other little things they do to deny care, watch SICKO, or ask anyone who has ever had to use their insurance.

You are the one disregarding reality, I begin to think you do so with an agenda as you are not that stupid.

Face it, they are in business to make money, doctors provide the care, not insurance agents - do I need to draw you a picture?

[sixmile]

16. Sorry about your wife

There are as many sides to this story as Americans.

[Egnever]

18. I understand what happened in your situation

It is currently happening to millions of others. Everyone is in the business to make money thats what business is. No one does it for free.

While this bill doesn't go as far as Most would have liked to pretend there is no new regulation to try to stop the practices that happened in the case of your wife is just blatantly ignoring reality. They may not be as strong as they should be but there are improvements there. No one is suggesting this should be the end of the health care debate. We need to build on this bill there is much left to be done but this bill is a good start.

I am sorry for what happened with your wife. I want to see those practices end as well I think every average american does.

As far as whats in this bill to affect control over decisions made for profit, There are provisions to include non profits into every exchange for one, there are also basic standards for coverage that must be met there are panels set up for arbitration to address scenarios like yours. There is lots in this bill that is a good step forward. It isn't perfect to be sure but its progress and can be built upon.

If anything this process should have shown us we need to keep working to improve our representation in congress. We need to stop the 39 year runs of our senators and congress people, Some of these guys are voting against improvements for their second or third time.
We cant expect big change from our government if we don't make big changes to our government. A new president is not enough the liebermans the nelsons the landry's the specters have to go we need to primary more democrats.

[Political Heretic]

25. A lot of what you just wrote is wrong or misleading:

"As far as whats in this bill to affect control over decisions made for profit, There are provisions to include non profits into every exchange for one,"

That's completely misleading. There's nothing in the bill proving any sort of resource for creating non-profit insurance competitors, and many if not most markets have no such organizations. It simply ALLOWS for the participation of non-profits, and leaves anything else up to states.

"there are also basic standards for coverage that must be met"

Like what? There is a caste system of tiered coverage in which poor people get to have third-rate plans because they can't afford anything else. But apart from that...

"there are panels set up for arbitration to address scenarios like yours."

These panels are internal - meaning the insurance companies run the investigation. :eyes:

[Egnever]

26. Well that post was completely full of BS

not one of your rebuttals is factual but if thats what you truly believe then no wonder you are screaming like a stuck pig.

in place of wasting my time rebutting your nonsense I will simply point to this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7954697&mesg_id=7954697

[Political Heretic]

30. Um... no, its taken straight from the Senate Bill. You have read the thing, right?

[Egnever]

32. Absolutely

post it then should be easy I'll wait.

[Political Heretic]

33. How do I clip sections from a pdf document?

[Egnever]

34. same as anywhere else

Highlight it and copy it

[Political Heretic]

37. Will that suffice? I though you would want me to "prove" it came from the bill

[Political Heretic]

38. Dude that doesn't work.... I've right clicked over it twenty times now

Won't let me highlight anything.

[Fumesucker]

39. It's not that easy with a PDF..

A lot of PDF readers won't let you clip and paste, including Acrobat reader..

[Political Heretic]

40. I have an alternative: go to your own copy of the bill, type "non-profit" in to the search box, and

read every section that comes up.

[Fumesucker]

46. Until your eyes cross..

That's some seriously heavy reading..

[laughingliberal]

90. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7954697&mesg_id=7955154

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7954697&mesg_id=7956892

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7954697&mesg_id=7955163

[enlightenment]

123. Read the bill - find the information to refute the OP .

Citing the second and third hand information (I believe berni used one direct citation from the bill - and that was probably because whatever article he was reading provided the link) provided by another DUer is worthless.

Argue on what you know. If you don't know, don't argue.

You're not 'wasting time' - you're avoiding the effort of actually reading the bill.

Too many words?

[dflprincess]

66. There's also the myth that "nonprofits" are more trustworthy

The three largest insurers in Minnesota are non-profit and none of their CEOs are living in small homes or using public transportation. Their premiums are in line with and just as unaffordable as the for profits. And, like the for profits, they waste millions every month paying commissions to their sales force, both internal and external. That's an expense that would be gone immediately if we had a single payer system.

A few years ago the state Attorney General ran audits of them and found that one of them was flat out lying about the amount they spent on overhead.

How honest they are dependes on how well regulations are enforced and how well they can cover their tracks. Non-profits will lead the way in showing the for-profits how to cook the books so it looks like they're meeting the MLR.

[eridani]

71. The very existence of for-profits starts a race to the bottom that non-profits must join n/t

[Dragonfli]

29. Bullshit - point to it if it exists. It is not there, I am not talking about caps and you know it.

I had excellent coverage by the way, they still play games and nothing addresses this form of control.
I am glad the stocks are doing so well now!

Kudos for that.
As long as they got their money's worth when buying everyone off. Lives have a very real price it appears.
People are just cash farms to this admin and everyone making the industry so much stronger.

Blue cross was an excellent "non-profit" solution or are you unaware of the history?

[laughingliberal]

84. "Blue cross was an excellent "non-profit" solution or are you unaware of the history?"

Exactly the example I've thought about when people start telling me how having a 'non-profit' in the exchanges will provide cost controls.

[defendandprotect]

119. As the public knows, Drs & Nurses know, what we need is MEDICARE FOR ALL --

[laughingliberal]

83. I am so sorry to hear your wife's story. After 15 years in oncology nursing I saw these

situations get more and more commonplace. And, God help us, we're leaving our health care administration in the hands of these people. I know I heard President Obama say the insurance companies deserve to make a profit. I'm not sure why they deserve that. Every penny that goes to profit is a penny that is being taken out of an American's pocket and not used to benefit a patient.

[defendandprotect]

118. Amazing, that after all they should know about insurance, they still want to ignore it...

Aren't these the same insurance companies that Obama was recently pointing

to as "evil" -- ???

Wow!

[Political Heretic]

23. There are next to no new regulations there, those that are are weak and full of exemptions.

When it comes to cost containment, there's pretty much no regulation left in the bill now.

Even a 2014 prohibition on denying coverage based on preexisting conditions comes with exceptions and exemptions.

[bluedawg12]

47. Cost control via everyone in the pool and MLR does not curb health care cost.

This was mentioned in another thread cited here (1):

>>By ensuring everyone enrolls in health insurance, not just the sick, but the healthy, and combining that with a first-time ever enforcement of the MLR of 85% on a national level, the cost of health care will be controlled significantly.<<

This may or may not curb insurance premiums, but it does nothing to curb the cost of health care delivery. It also points to what you were saying PH, that everyone is being herded into the pool to lower risk.

Also from the same source:

>>This will tell anyone how much they will pay and how much the federal gov't will pay. "I only make $10 / hr" is an often quoted figure here. The times I've seen it cited, it's often at 35 hr / week. In a 50 week year, that's at most $17,500 / year. Putting that in under the reconciliation plan, and you'd get a yearly premium of $793 for a single adult ($66 / month). If that income were for a family, even a single parent with a child, that family would qualify for Medicaid. (1)<<
Not sure how $739/yr stacks up to a mandated health insurance policy that costs $1,200/month. seems like a drop in the bucket.

>>In fact, according to the CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premium... ) more than 57% of the population will receive subsidies.(1) <<

That, unless the cost of health care delivery is regulated via evidence based medicine "guidelines", will surely increase the federal cost of health care and the deficit and the taxpayer premium subsidy goes into the coffers of Big Insurance.


(1) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7954697&mesg_id=7954697

[Political Heretic]

50. Thank you. Yes. It's a meaningless declarative statement without any reason to believe it.

Further more, 85% thing - all this is going to do is encourage insurance and health providers to continue to collude together to raise costs and prices...without any other regulatory constriction - this actually ENCOURAGES rising costs, not discourages.

A cap - at 85% or some other number, only works in tandem with robust regulatory oversight and restrictions on price raising.

[eridani]

70. Yes. Those regulations are totally worthless

1. Fines will be way cheaper than paying expensive claims.
2. Recission will still be allowed in case of "fraud." It will happen every time those sociopathic murdering shitstains calculate that the patient has good odds of dying before their case is adjudicated. And only RECISSION is prohibited, NOT claims denial.
3. There is no more useless piece of horesehit than a disclosure law, which is nothing but a list of very naughty boys and girls. And if they aren't careful, they'll wind up on that very same list next year.
4. Cost control by mandating MLRs has been tried in 15 states, where it has been proven to be an ABJECT FAILURE.
5. So they have to accept people with pre-existing conditions. Big whoop--they get to charge whatever they damn well feel like charging for premiums.

[unapatriciated]

109. so true-that is exactly what happened in California

they paid a fine and offered to re-instate policy holders that had been dropped (in violation of California regulations) in exchange for the policy holders dropping lawsuits against the offending Insurance Companies.
They will continue their practices of denials, reviews and dropping insureds for 'Material Misrepresentation of Facts'.

In California a settlement agreement was made that allowed the insurance companies involved to keep over twelve years of illegal profits with no penalties or reimbursement to the insureds.

[truth2power]

129. You can regulate, but if you have no workable enforcement mechanism

you might as well forget it.

So if anyone can tell me where the enforcement process has any teeth, I'd be willing to listen.

[midnight]

92. Sorry our wealth care has failed you and your wife. We need to step around this

broken system that has been jimmy rigged to protect profits instead of lives.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Your source is hugely biased in favor of the Health Care Industry.

From Source Watch: Notice the Health Care slant, notice that RWJF pimped for the Medicare Drug Law which now is getting such bad press, and notice that Thomas Kean, huge RW Neo-con, is the Chairman of the Foundation.

Fake news

In 1999, RWJF awarded a two-month contract worth $51,844 to Home Front Communications, for the "production and distribution of television messages to encourage enrollment in CHIP," the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Home Front is a broadcast public relations firm infamous for having produced two video news releases for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services promoting the benefits of the controversial Medicare drug law. <1> The Government Accountability Office later ruled that the VNRs had "violated the restriction on using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."

Other Home Front Communications work for RWJF, done in conjunction with the PR firm Burness Communications from 2003 through mid-September 2007, includes producing and distributing "86 broadcast material packets to television stations and/or radio stations highlighting health and health care issues important to RWJF and featuring RWJF grantees and their work," reaching "more than 684-million viewers." RWJF noted, "Much of the content was utilized by stations in the top 20 or 50 markets."

Board of Trustees...note who they work for:

* Thomas H. Kean, Chairman
* Robert E. Campbell, "retired vice chairman of the Board of Directors of Johnson & Johnson (J&J)"
* Nancy-Ann DeParle, "senior adviser at J.P. Morgan Partners, LLC"
* George S. Frazza, "counsel for Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler; "previously served Johnson & Johnson for more than 30 years in the roles of corporate secretary, vice president and general counsel, and was a member of the executive committee."
* Linda Griego, "president of Zapgo Entertainment Group"
* Wendy W. Hagen, "senior vice president of Porter Novelli International"
* Edward J. Hartnett, "retired company group chairman of Johnson & Johnson responsible for Ethicon Inc., and other international affiliates."
* Robert Wood Johnson IV, "chairman and CEO of the Johnson Company"
* Ralph S. Larsen, "former chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson (J&J)."
* Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., Foundation president and CEO
* Edward E. Matthews, "senior advisor and was formerly senior vice chair, Investments and Financial Services of American International Group, Inc. (AIG)"
* William L. Roper, M.D., M.P.H., dean of the School of Medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC); CEO, UNC Health Care System and "vice chancellor for medical affairs at UNC."
* Marla E. Salmon, Sc.D., R.N., "dean of the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing and a professor at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, Atlanta."
* Gail L. Warden, former "president and CEO of Henry Ford Health System"
* Richard B. Worley, "managing director of Permit Capital Group, LLC"; retired "CEO and chief investment officer of Morgan Stanley Investment Management."

[Political Heretic]

51. GREAT catch!

[dixiegrrrrl]

62. Thank you...( bow ) ( bow))

I have been tracking that Thomas Kean fellow, he is practically sewn into the side of Lee Hamilton, and they have their fingers in many pies, along with Brzezinski. Many right wing organizations, boards, etc.

[Kalun D]

75. In other words

DLC ASTROTURF

how come people are allowed to post this kind of crap on DU?

[Sebastian Doyle]

81. Well, this could be just a coincidence, but....

Some of the people who post this crap on DU are from New Jersey. Draw your own conclusions. :)

[laughingliberal]

85. Amazing what you find when you pull that curtain back! nt

[bluedawg12]

24. The blog confirms the need for a public option, health insurance is not affordable.

This helps how?

"Americans will be forced by law to pay private insurance companies out of pocket whether they want to or not."

[defendandprotect]

112. And, if you don't pay, IRS will take 2% of your earnings !! . . .

From what I read it sounded like up front ... not at tax time!!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Marr]

73. I don't even know what to say.

Scare tactics and an industry press release in one concise post.

[Kalun D]

74. Bwah ha ha ha ha!!!!

""IF HCR ISN'T PASSED NOW.""

this is not health care reform

it's 2700 pages of loopholes with no single payer, not even a public option

it's a DLC corporatist--

PIECE OF SH*T.

[varelse]

102. "Trust us, We're Experts"

:eyes:

[LibDemAlways]

3. Thanks for posting this. Ultimately it's going to be up to

the American people to weigh in come November. Have a feeling the Dems are hanging a giant albatross around their necks that will sink them. We'll all be the losers then.

[Newest Reality]

6. Good Point

Really though, are they actually that stupid or just playing a game of craft and opportunity? I tend to favor the latter.

Do they REALLY want to keep that job in public office? Does it matter to them? In the world of wealth, they make chicken-feed, (which turns out to be more like a realistic income as the rest of us contemplate it).

So, does public office set them up for life, regardless of how long they retain their offices? Is the position just a stepping stone now, where you do favors, network connections and alliances, do some power broking, and then move swiftly and effortlessly into the corporate tunnel of gold rings and rich, ripe rewards, there for the plucking?

Maybe its the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City of opulence for the critters we elect, and we assume it represents anything more? Of course, I am generalizing and this does not refer to the small and handful of dedicated politicians who are there for more altruistic, practical reasons; you know, like serving the better interests of their constituents, perhaps.

[Better Believe It]

11. They aren't stupid. They are just doing their job .... representing Wall Street and big business

What's the worst thing that could happen to them?

Lose an election?

That would open the door to a corporate lobbyist job with a lot more pay and perks!

[Newest Reality]

17. Thanks for underscoring that

I think our general perception of how many things work is becoming, (or even has been) extremely outdated. There is a sort of a drag and lag in the collective mindset that is working against us and this is being exploited in many ways.

Didn't Booshy-boy,or some Rethug, (they all sound alike to me) say that they were way ahead in their own game? To paraphrase, we would be pondering and trying to react to their "shock and awe" travesties and tacits while they were moving rapidly forward with new ones to confound and disable opposition.

Royal scam, in that sense.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Come Nov. matters not.

Please recall:

The TARP bailout vote, when 70% of the country rose up and told their Congress critters NO to the bailout.
Remember how that worked out? The Congress folks just stood up and made nice speeches and it passed anyhow, just as this bailout to the Insurance Industry is going to be passed.
If the Republicans were in power now, they would be arguing FOR the bill and the Dems would be arguing against it. Remember the last 10 years?
If the Dems were really on the people's side, there would be no months long hassle over reconciliation and
bipartisanship and Blue Dogs and all the crap.
BOTH parties AND the WH dropped single payer like a hot rock as soon as they could.
What does that tell you about the political reality in this country?

edited to add:
"Barack Obama promised the American people any bill he signed must include a public option. Political rhetoric about the public option rose and fell over the next several months, due in large part to the fact that over seventy-five percent of Americans wanted a public option to be part of health reform."

http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2010/03/trillion-dollar-wealth-transfer-health.html

[LibDemAlways]

52. I'm on your side, and I think come November we'll be regretting that

this was a Dem bill signed by a Dem President. The R's surely are not going to let anyone forget it. As I said, it's a big albatross that will sink the Dems. Anyone thinking otherwise is kidding themselves.

[Kermitt Gribble]

103. Great post! You hit the nail on the head:

"If the Republicans were in power now, they would be arguing FOR the bill and the Dems would be arguing against it. Remember the last 10 years?"

It's all for show - both "parties" have the same agenda.

[tbyg52]

12. >>the American people to weigh in come November

Good luck to us finding non-corporate candidates, or candidates who won't swiftly become corporate.

[bluedawg12]

21. The pols should represent us but judging by approval ratings and this bill

not so much.

[LibDemAlways]

53. Of course they are all corporatists. However, the American voter isn't

all that bright and is going to simply punish the party in power, which means the Dems will be in for a bloodbath and will be replaced by a bunch of repukes.

It's a no-win anymore. No one is looking out for the little guy - only more and better ways to screw him.

[bluedawg12]

55. So true.

We seem to matter only during campaign season - and then only for rhetoric.

[Lorien]

59. I'm holding out hope that they'll punish BOTH parties by voting for third parties

in November. That would be the kind of wake up call this Nation's politicians need to stop taking the non-corporate citizens in this Country for granted. The status quo is simply unsustainable.

[tbyg52]

60. That's the only thing that has the slightest chance of sending a message, I think.

Enough of this lurching back and forth between two wings of the same corporate party.

[eridani]

76. Maybe, maybe not. The Repukes might yet ramp up the sociopathic whackjob act to really offensive

--levels. Of course it's seriously stupid to count on that as our only strategy.

[gulfcoastliberal]

5. K&R for the truth... this shameful scam pure fascism!

Makes me sick.

[SlingBlade]

101. K & R That !

[sixmile]

9. Wall Street needs more money

K&R

I agree with this blogger 100%

[Political Heretic]

61. Which reminds me, that scathing report came out on leman bros this week

[Nikki Stone1]

68. Yup

..

[leftstreet]

10. K&R

[Max Stein]

15. Good post

Thanks

[Hannah Bell]

19. kr

[Starry Messenger]

20. k & r

[bluedawg12]

22. As long as health insurance is a profitable business expect consumers to be shafted

the public option was the way to go.

[Odin2005]

27. K&R. For-Profit Healthcare is an oxymoron.

[LWolf]

28. K & R

[AzDar]

31. K & R

:kick:

[ShortnFiery]

35. K & R. eom

[Romulox]

36. Enthusiastic k/r. I look forward to future installments. nt

[Uncle Joe]

41. I agree with you, but I believe the for profit "health" insurance corporations had another

motive to oppose health care reform as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7955722

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Political Heretic.

[Political Heretic]

54. That was a good, provocative OP - I gave it a K&R

Thank you. Keep em coming.

[Uncle Joe]

56. Thanks, I'm looking foward to chapter 2 of your series.

The Facade of Reform.

[Edweird]

42. K&R

[blindpig]

43. win/win

Of course, these are serious people, it's just like vetting possible presidential candidates.

k&r

[stillwaiting]

44. k and r

[asdjrocky]

45. Indeed.

[ProSense]

48. Breaking: The U.S. spends $2.1 trillion annually on the status quo.

$2.1 trillion annually

The uninformed strike again.

[Nikki Stone1]

58. Thank you for kicking this post.

Mighty kind of you. :)

[eridani]

79. So? The only way to change that is to have government controlling costs

--rather that fucking over the public to subsidize insurance companies.

[ProSense]

108. Oh BS.

It cost too much is a bullshit RW argument.

$2.1 trillion annually = 21 trillion over 10 years.

1 trillion over 10 year to reform the system, reduce cost and cover 32 million more people is tiny by comparison.

[eridani]

126. Coverage is totally worthless if you are stuck with 40% of your costs n/t

[defendandprotect]

114. US spends the same as Swiss on health care: Would provide a luxurious system of HC...

except, Swiss pay the money and they get the care --

We pay for the care and we don't get it --

The Kaiser "secret" revealed by Nixon in that notorious video clip, if you all recall!!

"No care" insurance is what we have!

[ProSense]

115. Do you really know what you're talking about?

With about 8 million people compared to the U.S. population of about 300 million, they spend the same?

[defendandprotect]

120. We spend PER PERSON what the Swiss spend on their luxurious health care system . . .

In fact, at this point, we probably spend way more PER PERSON --!!

Now try asking yourself your own question . . .

Do you really know what you're talking about?

[kenny blankenship]

124. And you will continue to pay that - AND MORE.

the trillion is on top of that.

[grantcart]

49. Your hyperbole is not based on the merits of the bill

I stopped reading with after this statement which has no basis in fact

Shortly thereafter, the one and only true cost-containment mechanism proposed in any variant of reform legislation – a competitive public option – was tabled

With the OPM controlling not only the price, the MLR, and the profit of the plans it would seem that you are basing your opinion on what you have heard about the plan and not what is actually in it.

[eridani]

80. Regulation by MLR is totally worthless bullshit! It has been tried at the state level

--15 times, and has been an abject failure. Regulation simply DOES NOT EXIST unless the government directly dictates prices and benefits, as they do in the Netherlands and other countries working through private insurance.

[Political Heretic]

82. In fact, without price regulation it actually *encourages* rising prices.

[laughingliberal]

86. True. Even if they don't manipulate the numbers (which they will) wouldn't it make sense if you can

only keep 15 cents of every dollar that you would be looking to increase how many dollars you get?

[Jackpine Radical]

98. It's another example of the "cost-plus" contracting

that Milton Friedman used to rage against in public policy.

[Nikki Stone1]

57. K & R

L

[merkins]

63. K&R! Good Work Political Heretic

When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws will be.

[tavalon]

64. I stand with the National Nurses Union

This is a damn shame.

[laughingliberal]

87. Absolutely! What a great organization they are.

Strong advocates for patients and nurses.

[tavalon]

89. Yep

Unfortunately, because my local union is a member organization of the ANA (useless and petty "organization"), I am also a member of the ANA. Needless to say, I don't stand with them. Hell, I can't stand them at all.

[Octafish]

122. +2

Nurses are TOPS!

[troubledamerican]

65. Ugly

[Lorien]

67. Kick. nt

[Greyhound]

72. K&R. Did you see the video

of Kucinich talking about changing his vote the first night?

I just happened onto it and thought, "My God, they worked him over".

I both admire and feel very sorry for him.

[upi402]

77. k/r "I both admire and feel very sorry for him"

... proud of him for taking the hit self-lessly

[Kalun D]

78. A HEARTY K and R

KICK AND RECOMMEND 100 TIMES

[laughingliberal]

88. K & R nt

[sabrina 1]

91. People are so blind. This is nothing more than the transfer

of public money into private hands. The system we now have uses public funds to cover Medicaid costs. This bill forces that money to go through Private Insurance, which they are calling 'subsidies' adding many more 'customers' and calling it 'covering more people'. Only difference is now, Private Insurance Corps get to take part of that money in profits. Considering that, the system we now have was better for the tax-payers, who will be subsidizing the profit margins of the corrupt private insurance industry.

Social Security is next. Big Businses has been drooling over the SS fund for decades. Bush was supposed to handle that job but by the time he got to it, he didn't have the political capital anymore for such a huge task.

Medicaid funds also were targeted but up to now, they couldn't do it. Thanks to Democrats, who DID have the political capital that Bush had lost, they finally did it.

I wonder how long they worked on trying to find a way to get their hands on Medicaid Funds. Every time someone tells me that the poor will be 'subsidized' I wonder why they don't understand what just happened. How clever it was to use Democrats to do this. They must have celebrated wildly the day they figured it out, betting on the fact that people are so blindly partisan they would do the dirty work of pushing the idea that 'subsidies' were a social program that even liberals could love. Talk about being fooled.

It would be fun to play a game trying to come up with as brilliant an idea as I'm sure they are working on, maybe even figured out by now, to funnel the SS fund into private hands.

They could use Democrats for that too, considering how easy it was to convince so many that 'subsidies' are a generous gift to the poor. It really is brilliant, you have to give them credit. The more people who get subsidies, the more profit for the Private Ins. Corps.

So, the Medicaid Fund will now be controlled by Private Insurance. Mission accomplished.

[Dinger]

93. Kick & Rec # 69 From Me PH

Bookmarked too.

[leveymg]

94. Everything they do is Trickle-Down economic stimulus. One last bubble - Securitization of the

Debt and direct federal subsidies to Wall Street and the Too Big To Fail financial corporations as the last-ditch approach to forestall the collapse of Capitalism.

End Game.

[TexasObserver]

95. recommend

[madrchsod]

96. it`s not about assuring that people get low or no cost health care

it`s about assuring the democratic party campaign funds for the 6 yrs.

[Jackpine Radical]

99. Absolutely.

[defendandprotect]

117. At least . . . I imagine it's much, much more than that ...

IMO, democracy is threatened by the Swiss secret bank accounts --

long been rumors about that re our Congress.

And, what's a soul going for on the market these days!

[grahamhgreen]

97. Trillions for big insurance that they will use to lobby to crush the meager reforms in the bill, duh

[bread_and_roses]

100. K&R - too miserable to write anything else (n/t)

[Kermitt Gribble]

104. K&R! n/t

[earcandle]

105. Research Bentonite, clean up your body, dump the medicine. Get healthy!

[SandWalker1984]

106. The Ensign huge LOOPHOLE -- they want you to THINK you will be able to afford health insurance

Apparently the best kept secret about Orahma care is that people talk about the elimination of pre-existing conditions but what people do not realize is that THE BILL DOES NOT SAY THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES CANNOT CHARGE YOU WHAT THEY WANT TO CHARGE YOU if you have a pre-existing condition. So there goes the benefit of that change, and the politicians know it.


The Ensign Healthcare Loophole
posted by Greg Kaufmann
The Nation
January 8, 2010

Taken at face value, Senator John Ensign's amendment which was included in the final Senate healthcare bill sounds pretty decent: by meeting "wellness" standards people can receive discounts on their employer-based healthcare premiums. Stop smoking--pay less. Hit a certain weight--pay less. Meet a cholesterol target--you get the idea.

Dems probably should have stopped and realized since the amendment was offered by Ensign it probably wasn't motivated by "wellness" at heart.

In fact, it allows premiums to be raised from current levels, and then "discounts" would reduce the premiums to current rates. People who don't meet the insurance companies' targets could pay up to 30 percent more for coverage, roughly $4000 based on the average cost of family coverage. The amount could increase to 50 percent which is over $6,600 for a family.

There is also the problem that this is biased against people with a genetic predisposition to high blood sugar, hypertension, high cholesterol, being overweight and a host of other often hereditary conditions. It's also biased against a lower-income person working two to three jobs to pay the bills, who has to stop and chow down some fast food between jobs rather than get to the gym where he or she can't afford a membership anyway. It's even biased against communities that don't have grocery stores where they can find fresh fruits and vegetables.

So what does this all mean? Remember a central promise of healthcare reform--even the watered down version--how people with preexisting conditions weren't supposed to be denied coverage or forced to pay more for their insurance? That all sounded pretty good, right? Well, guess again.

"Incentives quickly become penalties for those who cannot meet the target," said Sue Nelson, vice president for federal advocacy at the American Heart Association (AHA). The AHA has led a coalition of more than 200 health and consumer organizations who oppose this Senate provision, including the National Organization for Women, American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and many mental health groups. "A wellness program could consist solely of a PREMIUM SURCHARGE based on a blood cholesterol count over 200. are significant potential unintended consequences such as burdening sicker employees and their families with significant increases in healthcare costs thereby making coverage unaffordable for those who need it the most."

Read the full article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/514042/the_ensign...

PREMIUM SURCHARGES.

As far as subsidies go -- the Republicans and the media are setting up for a political change in Congress in 2010. Once Republicans gain more control, they will cut or hack many subsidies. Don't forget that the Republicans cut the CHPS program for children's health care.

Last, they did not remove the insurance corporations anti-trust exemptions. So welcome to the monopolies.

There is no guarantee in the Senate bill that citizens of the US get a minimum, guaranteed health benefits package at a guaranteed affordable price. Therefore, those who need health care the most (people over 50 years of age and those with pre-existing conditions) will be going without health care insurance and paying fines if they cannot afford the allowed PREMIUM SURCHARGES (unless you qualify for Medicaid, which is a tax payer funded public option). That's a loophole big enough to drive a Mac truck thru.

Our country is already spending $10,000 per person for health care while leaving out over 10% of our population from coverage. That's over twice what they are spending per person in Canada for complete, universal care for all Canadians and almost three times the $4000 spent for universal care in France. The politicians are always talking about the market place and global competition, why would you handicap the citizens of the US with such a corporate ball and chain and anti-competitive mandates?

Hip, hip hooray for transparency and chains we can believe in.

[Speciesamused]

107. It is a sham....

an imitation or counterfeit purporting to be genuine.

[Nikki Stone1]

110. The bill is

yes

[lame54]

111. k&r

[CornerBar]

113. K&R

[defendandprotect]

116. Thank you, Political Heretic -- imagine GOP having control over it--!!

And I was reading somewhere the other day that not only are we going to force

that Americans sign up for this "junk insurance" -- but if they don't we'll send

the IRS after them to take 2% of their earnings!


America -- home of corrupt capitalism!!

[TacticalPeek]

121. K & R

:kick:

[Nikki Stone1]

125. Hmmm...

:donut:


??

:popcorn:

??

:beer:

OK, I'm done.

[waiting for hope]

127. Too late to rec - but I'll give a hearty kick -

:kick:

Excellent PH. :)

[Political Heretic]

128. Me too.