Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Substantive Criticism of the Bill that just (sadly) passed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:44 PM
Original message
Substantive Criticism of the Bill that just (sadly) passed
I have been assured that no one gets banned for substantive criticism. So here it some:


But this is not health care reform, and the task of providing health care that Americans can afford is still before us. Too much was sacrificed to corporate interests in the sausage-making process. Rather than address the fundamental flaws in our health care system, we applied a giant band-aid. This health care bill does not come close to doing all that needs to be done to meet the needs of our citizens and our businesses as we retool our economy for the 21st century.

There are many good and praise-worthy things in this health care bill: help for those with pre-existing conditions, guaranteed coverage for children, money for community health centers, and expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP. But there is also cause for serious concern. Never before has the government mandated that its citizens pay directly to private corporations almost as much as they do in federal taxes, especially when those corporations have been granted unregulated monopolies.

This bill fundamentally shifts the relationships of governance in order to achieve its objectives. It was hard to reconcile the President's campaign against the evils of the insurance industry with a solution of "corporate tithing" that drives millions of people onto their rolls. We have empowered another quasi-governmental, "too big to fail" industry with alarming nonchalance.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/22-11






....The mendacity of the Democratic leadership in the face of this reality is staggering. Howard Dean, who is a doctor, said recently: "This is a vote about one thing: Are you for the insurance companies or are you for the American people?" Here is a man who once championed the public option and now has sold his soul. What is the point in supporting him or any of the other Democrats? How much more craven can they get?

Take a look at the health care debacle in Massachusetts, a model for what we will get nationwide. One in six people there who have the mandated insurance say they cannot afford care, and tens of thousands of people have been evicted from the state program because of budget cuts. The 45,000 Americans who die each year because they cannot afford coverage will not be saved under the federal legislation. Half of all personal bankruptcies will still be caused by an inability to pay astronomical medical bills. The only good news is that health care stocks and bonuses for the heads of these corporations are shooting upward. Chalk this up as yet another victory for our feudal overlords and a defeat for the serfs.

The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care-$7,129 per capita-although 45.7 million Americans remain without health coverage and millions more are inadequately covered, meaning that if they get seriously ill they are not covered. Fourteen thousand Americans a day are now losing their health coverage. A report in the journal Health Affairs estimates that, if the system is left unchanged, one of every five dollars spent by Americans in 2017 will go to health coverage. Private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume 31 cents of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough, Physicians for a National Health Plan points out, to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. Check out www.healthcare-now.org. It has some of the best analysis.

This bill is not about fiscal responsibility or the common good. The bill is about increasing corporate profit at taxpayer expense. It is the health care industry's version of the Wall Street bailout. It lavishes hundreds of billions in government subsidies on insurance and drug companies. The some 3,000 health care lobbyists in Washington, whose dirty little hands are all over the bill, have once more betrayed the American people for money. The bill is another example of why change will never come from within the Democratic Party. The party is owned and managed by corporations. The five largest private health insurers and their trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, spent more than $6 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. Pfizer, the world's biggest drug maker, spent more than $9 million during the last quarter of 2008 and the first three months of 2009. The Washington Post reported that up to 30 members of Congress from both parties who hold key committee memberships have major investments in health care companies totaling between $11 million and $27 million. President Barack Obama's director of health care policy, who will not discuss single payer as an option, has served on the boards of several health care corporations. And as salaries for most Americans have stagnated or declined during the past decade, health insurance profits have risen by 480 percent....

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/22-1



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. kicked and recommended
I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this was a horrible piece of legislation. Thanks for posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I too think that this bill was set up to fail to create access to affordable
I think that this bill was designed to fail to create access to affordable medical treatment. This bill certainly creates access to affordable health "insurance", but that is no where near the same thing as medical treatment.

This bill is as good as the corporations would allow. Pretty lame, but better then nothing.

k/r for the OP..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks for posting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. The truth hurts --
but there it is. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. yep
It will take at least five yeart before most people realize just how bad this bill is. By then, there will be talk of transferring Medicare to this new infrastructure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. 'health care industry's version of the Wall Street bailout'
Imagine if we'd been forced to purchase bank 'products' to avoid fines

This is NO DIFFERENT, it justs sells well because it's about our health

I'd rather just bail the fuckers out now, then go straight to the inevitable single payer

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
102. Yep, this is nothing but massive theft & corruption just like the bankster bailout was.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. So does this mean...
that as this reality sets in, we might actually have set the stage for full, single-payer?
(I sure hope so.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. No one wants to believe that this is
a Pyhrric victory. So much was sacrificed to win that all that will emerge is a plate of bones to chew on. In the meantime health insurance and PhRMA stocks are going up.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. Mendacity = Republicans.
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 03:54 PM by tabatha
The first SS bill was not perfect, but was improved over time.

They had to fight like hell to get even this imperfect bill.
If you thought a perfect bill was possible, you live in la-la land.
If you thought the insurance companies could be removed, you are delusional.

This is just a first step, and it will get more support as people experience the benefits.

Vicky Kennedy is thankful it is passed.

On edit: a number of children with pre-existing conditions will not die thanks to this bill.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I wonder if the history of the SS bill would give insight
into how HRC might evolve. That the GOP was so unbending HRC makes me think there are some valid parallels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
87. Only if you firmly believe that SS mandated purchase of retirement accounts from Wall Street n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. ...and a number of their parents will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. They will anyway, without the HCR bill.
And they are ramping up to change that as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Safe to say this isn't a win then...unless we were just "D" over "R"
all along. I'll be happy when everyone has affordable health care, if that happens in my lifetime. As it stands, even with ramping, that isn't so. Take care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. The problem with your comparison is:
The initial SS Bill established a FOUNDATION that could be built upon over time.
SS ESTABLISHED a Publicly Owned/Government Administered pension plan that covered everyone through deductions in our paychecks. This FOUNDATION was improved upon over time.

The recently passed HCR bill established no such foundation.
In fact the FOUNDATION contained in the HCR Bill establishes the For Profit Health Insurance Corporation as the GATEWAY to Health Care in the US.
This FOUNDATION will have to be undone to make any real improvements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. Perfectly explained. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
47. +1000
should be an OP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. The SS talking point would only be a fair analogy if SS had mandated
all Americans to go invest in hedge fund account with a for profit Wall Street firm. SS started out as a program where the government collected the funds, managed the funds, and distributed the funds. It was expanded as time went on but it started out and remains a public program.

Just saw Dean on Ed. Said there is a lot of work ahead of us although he thinks this does open the door. It's not time to throw the party and put our feet up, yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. Mendancity is a trait that many people possess
Not just a political party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinblue Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
55. as
DK said-it is a bill built on sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Kidd Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. More like a swamp IMHO.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreeHuggingLiberal Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
60. They were fighting strawmen.
Democrats capitulated time after time while negotiating against no one but themselves. If it wasn't so calculated, I would have thought it silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
86. The first SS bill was NOT a mandate to invest in the stock market for your retirement
--with the IRS docking your pay if it refused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. Have you actually read the bill?
I'm willing to bet you haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Yes I have. And I debated what I read with people on this board.
You can feel free to put up certain sections of the bill, if you like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. And yet you choose to post bullshit from discredited teabagger Hamsher.
Why can't you argue the merits/problems of the bill in your own words?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. Berni, you need to get educated on this issue
And not just have a knee jerk emotional response.

My guess is that you already have employer provided health insurance and think you are safe from the effects of this bill. You are not. Watch employers race to the bronze.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
73. LOL, what desperate nonsense.


Jane Hamsher, a "discredited teabagger"! :rofl:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
76. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
57. I'm sorry, NS....
I simply don't believe you when you say you've read the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. Don't be sorry,
be proud of your inability to trust your fellow Democrats. It's what allowed the party to pass a very bad bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. I should just blindly trust all my fellow dems?
Really?

I don't remotely believe you read the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. You did blindly trust with this bill.
See, I read the bill, and I know how much you took on faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Nice strawman, Nikki....
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 11:29 PM by SDuderstadt
how do you know what position I took on the bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #79
104. From the fact that you used the meme.
Of course, if you were opposed to this bill, I'd be interested to know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. And what "meme" would that be...
NS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #57
97. Wow, you read 2,700 page bills that constantly get changed? Must be nice to have that much time
but how about you actually discuss some of the issues. Point out what in the OP is false instead of using bullshit arguments. You don't need to read 2,700 pages of legislation to know what's in the bill; plenty of resources out there to make that task simple so most americans that have jobs and other responsibilities can understand it.

So which part of the OP do you think is wrong? Was the anti-trust exemption removed in this bill? No? Are americans then being forced for the first time ever by the federal government to buy a product from private companies which hold a monopoly? No? Does this bill still make healthcare unaffordable for many single young americans living on around $10 /hr? Yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. As Wanda Sykes said of the bank bailout, "We just can't stand to let rich people not be rich."
Another huge transfer of wealth from the working and lower classes to the wealthy corporate interests. I do not for a second begrudge the money that is going to expand Medicaid but the mandate for the working and middle classes is almost all going to the insurance and hospital industries. And, despite the arguments of some, the states are under no obligation to change any criteria for Medicaid except the financials. The states who do not cover childless adults who are not disabled now will not be required to cover them under this bill. The premiums paid by working and middle class Americans and the subsidies paid by the government are a direct infusion of cash into the coffers of the insurance and hospital industries.

The MA example should give us all pause. If the example of 1 in 6 who can not afford to use their policies holds that means that of the 30,000,000 we keep hearing will be newly covered 5,000,000 of them will be in that category. I suspect we will see a higher percentage nationally left unable to use their 'coverage.' Add to that we already know 20,000,000 will wind up not covered and we are now, conservatively, up to 25,000,000 left without. Just isn't all that and a box of chocolates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R - for content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
17. Non-substantive FDL bullshit hidden via commondreams.org links. Nice try though.
Hamsher is now trying to backpedal by saying this bill is a first step while she has been trying to kill the bill all along with her best-bud Norquist and her teabagger buddies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. Fail: that's a variant of ad hominum attack: trying to deny the facts by discrediting the sourc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. What if the poster linked to the same information via Faux Gnus?
Would it still fit your definition?

Because this is part of their meme too, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #31
43. Turnabout is fair play. The article is absolutely full of ad-hominem argument
It's a flawed bill in many ways. But you know what? A concrete foundation rarely bears much resemblance to the house that will eventually stand upon it. this is not the best foundation, nor will what gets built on it be perfect either. But it sure as hell beats the hole in the ground we've been huddling in while burning our money to keep warm.

And sorry if you dislike my saying so, but fallacy-laden articles are inevitably going to be replied to in the same manner. A simple route to more effective advocacy of anything is to strip out all the pejorative adjectives and see if the argument still makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. the sad reality
of this legislation is that it forecloses on any real 'health care' reform

this is health insurance reform, of the worst kind: it is a direct taxpayer subsidy to private corporations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neecy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. even worse....
The insurance companies will skim off a percentage of both our premiums and the federal subsidies for their monstrous profits. It's legally mandated racketeering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #51
71. Yep
That's what is going to destroy this program in the long run. Costs will run rapidly out of control because of corporate greed. It's coming, but we'll end up holding the bag. Even some of the biggest supporters on DU will end up screwed by this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
54. It's a shifting sand foundation draining stability away from the health care home toward
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 07:06 PM by Uncle Joe
for profit enterprises; having nothing to do with actual health care whether they be for profit "health" insurance corporations, the corporate media via commercials and advertising or even the Congress with an ongoing perpetual supply of lobbying cash which wouldn't be needed if we had universal coverage for every American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #54
72. You said it perfectly.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #43
98. Which part of the article are ad-hominem arguments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
67. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #17
85. Yup...I haven't forgotten. She was a clown denegrating the bill. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. The great news is that it still may not pass and we can leave things as they are!
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 04:30 PM by stray cat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. I believe it did pass and will be signed tomorrow by the President
The Senate still needs to pass the reconciliation amendment (and let's hope they do) but the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve becomes law tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
21. Guess what.....
...this is a capitalist country. No, we didn't turn socialist overnight with one health care bill. Why am I not surprised?

Look, its all fair and wise to want universal health care. But to get there from here will take a radical turn away from capitalism. Reality is that we won't do that for a while. This law will, however, get us one step closer and will help millions of people live healthier lives and free them from some private controls.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #21
83. Turning insurance into a mandated private utility (unregulated utility) isnt capitalism-its Econ 101
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 06:14 AM by Leopolds Ghost
Turning insurance into a mandated private utility (unregulated utility) isnt capitalism-its Econ 101. Most people took Econ 101, right? the section on the radical difference between how you figure market price between free market, price controlled market, demand controlled utility (inflexible demand), regulated and unregulated monopoly (oligopoly nearly counts as a monopoly but you won't hear Congress talk about that). This is really basic stuff. Heck, I didn't even get a good grade in Econ 101 but I remember my segment on the difference between a freely purchased good and a government mandated utility quite well.

Put it another way -- you have a company that sells widgets. Suddenly, you:

1. Allow demand to remain flexible below the profitable production price point, driving the cost of the widget up as it becomes a specialty item.

2. Allow supply to remain flexible below most users' price point, causing the market to attain equilibrium at a price point at which 25% of the marketplace is underserved.

3. Allow users to buy whatever type of widget they want, OR NOT, causing an additional marginal percentage of the "choice" (sought-after) market to not purchase the premium widget at the previous market price point. This drives other competitors to offer a range of options at a lower price point. On the other hand, if the entire market is skewed to offer a substandard product because of production conditions (like booking a comfortable airline flight) then this does not solve the problem of 25-50% being underserved, merely ensures they are paying the rate that the poor insurance is actually worth.

4. Allow insurance and financial co's to gobble each other up, removing the competing widget makers from the above equation and turning it into a monopoly / oligopoly equation wherein the equilibrium price is much higher and determined solely by:

4.a. The number and degree of collusion between the members of the cartel (cartel economics)

4.b. Demand-side inflexibility (see below)

4.c. The mass production efficiency curve of the monopolistic producer (a monopoly will want to sell more and more of an overpriced product, but can't, even if the customer is forced to buy it, at a certain point it becomes less profitable to oversell it.) Subsidies can remove this "problem" for the insurer, as it has for the sugar and corn industries.

5. You can mandate price controls for the widget. This causes shortages as people try and use as much of it as possible and producers try to produce as little as possible (the bugaboo of command economy) but socially, it works. Of course, this is the point at which you say to yourself, "should insurance be a private utility run by a commission, mandated and essentially run by the gov't but with the profits going to the producers, like gas and electric, or HOA?" Keep in mind that the sole justification usually heard for private utilities is the enormous capital costs (non-customer investment) required to set them up.

6. You can mandate that every person (citizen or otherwise) buy your widget. This removes demand price flexibility from the equation altogether, since it eliminates the power of the consumer to have any role in setting the price, since the price point in any market (capitalist or communist or what-have-you) is determined by the point at which the customer walks away from the table. This turns the product into what is known as a utility. If the utility is mandated but not price controlled, then the good becomes a natural monopoly and the price is determined purely by monopoly economics, i.e. whatever maximizes profit for the supplier.

Keep in mind that a monopoly NATURALLY SEEKS to sell to every single consumer in the marketplace, so claiming that "forcing" insurers to SELL their product to more consumers by forcing said consumers to buy it does nothing to "increase efficiency" except in the sense that additional insurers tap into the newly formed captive marketplace (what do you want to bet there's a list, state by state, of who can participate?) but this is unattainable for an unregulated monopoly. That is where the fines and the subsidies kick in to ensure that this bill operates essentially like Franco-British Mercantilism of the 1700s.

But this does NOT "increase efficiency" except in the Greenspan sense of lowering premiums for the existing upper middle class who have coverage by removing the requirement that they subsidize the indigent through traditional marketplace dynamics, by forcing the indigent to pay for coverage at full market rate (remember, the burden is on the lower middle class and working poor to prove they are eligible to apply for the "exchange" (which is simply a subsidized market-tested lower-cost version of the same private products, like when a company spins off its bargain brand into a separate business unit, a common trick to do in-house in a monopoly economic situation) to avoid a fine, like proving you're eligible to stay on welfare, and they'll be treated the same way as welfare recipients since the POLICY OBJECT of the "exchanges" and non-existent "public option" is to serve AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE in order to finance the system with fines and privately insure as many people as possible, who are expected to lower premiums for existing upper-middle-class policies while magically removing the uninsured from the rolls the way they removed all those people on welfare and poor standardized test-takers from the rolls, the purpose of the whole endeavor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #83
90. Very good. Please OP in the Economics section. Thanx n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
89. I see. So you think that Taiwan is the communist country and mainland China the capitalist one?
On what planet did that happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. That is indeed substantive. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
24. Numerous nations have mandated private insurance
I do feel that mandating people buy insurance from companies as slimy as private insurance industry is the worst aspects of this bill. However other nations have similar plans.

The government also mandates building codes. Which means they mandate you hire contractors and electricians. However I don't have a problem with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Other nations that have established their systems through private insurance companies
have HIGHLY regulated the industry and ride herd on them big time and they don't provide a lot of nice loopholes for them. For the most part they are also not for profit industries in those countries.

Local governments do, indeed, establish building codes. They do not, however, mandate that you build anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
70. Exactly. And we have an individual mandate with no price controls.
The bill was a giveaway to the insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
91. There is not the slightest similarity between mandated insurance in the Netherlands and this bill
The Dutch government DICTATES the premium costs and benefits for a SINGLE comprehensive plan, add-ons of course allowed. None of this Platinum through Bronze horseshit. They also tax businesses and use the money for public health, to take care of the 5% of chronically ill people not in the system, to subsidize private insurance where necessary, and to reinburse insurers who get hit with much higher than average claims payouts. The cost of a monthly adult premium which covers everything but dental, with NO copays, NO deductibles and above all NO age rating or any other kind of discrimination allowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
25. Thanks for posting. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
28. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
30. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. ps: as many have said: direct taxpayer subsidy to big insurers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
37. knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
38. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
40. kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eyerish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
44. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Biker13 Donating Member (609 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
46. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luciferous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
48. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
49. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
50. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, Nikki Stone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
52. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
53. k & r nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
56.  K+R. I grieve the lost opportunity this was. We should have gotten at least the PO
we were promised. I do not think we will ever get it. Whatever happened to not signing a Bill without it? And why couldn't the same arms have been twisted for a PO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
58. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
59. thanks for posting this knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
61. I'd hardly call it "substantive"... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
62. After my shit day on Facebook, I have to say that it's refreshing...
to have a substantive disagreement with someone on the passage of HCR. The shit coming from the right is extremely unsubstantive.

I hope we fix this soon. I figure when enough Insurance companies exploit the loopholes, we'll be screaming for a public option like we should've had in this version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. The right is against it because they've been told to be, not because they understand anything
BTW, did you see health insurance stocks today? That tells us, more than anything else, who benefits from this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. I saw that one coming.
But yesterday I went to a spaghetti luncheon at a church to benefit a two year old child with stage 4 cancer. Both her parents are self-employed and they're quickly facing financial ruin on top of all the shit they're going through. They'll benefit from this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Does the child qualify for public health care?
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 10:23 PM by Nikki Stone1
I don't know what state you are in, but in California, a low income child could get Medi-cal and get treated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #69
80. She will soon enough.
Both parents' businesses are going down the toilet fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #68
92. You mean they won't go bankrupt before 2014? Lots of luck on that one
BTW, most medical bankruptcies don't involve costs anywhere near lifetime coverage limits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Kidd Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
64. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
75. K&R! Excellent selections, both Hamsher and Hedges.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. You're welcome.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
81. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
82. Bookmarking to read tomorrow. Time to sleep... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 05:56 AM
Response to Original message
84. Did you hear parts of it are being struck?!
Not to mention if insurance is more than 8% of your income you are exempt for purchasing insurance. I guess not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #84
93. Which means that low income but not abjectly poor people don't get care n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pecwae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
88. K&R.
I do hope that your statement prefacing the links remains true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shotten99 Donating Member (478 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
94. I'm not seeing cost controls.
I could deal with having to pay for a policy from any provider under the condition that by "not dropping me" they triple my premium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
95. K & R. And most substantive.
I don't begrudge Dean for supporting the thing in the end. He fought long and hard for a better bill.

It will be interesting to see who is really on board when the PO push starts up again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
96. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
99. Thank you for this post, Nikki Stone1.
I also put up a recap yesterday, to add to the record.


Ms. Hamsher's eloquent statement reflects grace, class and courage.


We've got a grueling, long-term battle ahead of us to ensure comprehensive and affordable health care for everyone.

We are fortunate indeed to have this woman on the front lines, especially now that we're seeing that each and every member of Congress can be either corrupted or shunted aside by the influence of money.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Thank you for this, Seafan. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. You're welcome, inna. Good to see you.
The battle rages on, and we're not retreating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
103. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
106. k & r
that about sums it up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
107. K&R.
This sums it up well. All the details will change again before most of this goes into effect through the courts, but the main thrust and only unequivocal fact of this bill is that it legally requires every American to pay a private institution.

A tax directly to private enterprise.

Repeat that, slowly, a tax paid directly to private companies.
:nuke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC