Make no mistake - Big Insurance just won a major victory

[Vinnie From Indy]

While even I, an ardent critic of the way HCR was handled, enjoys watching the right-wing lose a POLITICAL battle, I still recognize this bill for what it is. It is, quite simply, a piece of legislation that gives Big Insurance the same deal that was given to Big Tobacco decades ago. It allows them to survive for decades longer than they might have otherwise. After the science was becoming crystal clear in the 1940s and 50s about the clear and present dangers of smoking, Big Tobacco was able to get away with initially only having a Surgeon General's warning placed on packs of cigarettes and some age restrictions for buyers. A decade or so later, Congress acted to restrain the advertising of the product. A decade after that came the lawsuits against Big Tobacco with a huge settlement paid out to states. The point is that Big Tobacco is STILL killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year and they are STILL gearing their advertising at children to capture new, potential addicts that will become lifelong customers. Think about that for a moment! An industry that knowingly targets children to become addicted to their deadly product has been able to survive for over 50 years since it was first definitively established that their product used as directed will kill you. Their strategy for survival is exactly the strategy that Big Insurance embraced with this HCR.

While some may not see it, INCREMENTAL change as seen by the insurance industry is modeled after the Big Tobacco model. This legislation has actually prolonged the suffering and prolonged for decades the trading of lives for profit. That was their goal and they have succeeded.

Now pass the champagne! I might as well get drunk with the rest of you fools!

Cheers!
:)

So long Rush! You worthless piece of crap!

[gateley]

1. Yeah, that sucks. Even more incentive to keep fighting for a PO. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. Absolutely!

[tridim]

2. It frustrating that you're going to benefit from all of our hard work.

Take it or leave it. Doesn't matter a lick to those of us who want our country's future to be better.

We're going to keep working for progress regardless of your continued FUD.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. I hope you at least get a fruit basket from Wellpoint this Christmas

They are delighted to have your support I'm sure.

Cheers!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[dflprincess]

10. And let's hope that "inexpensive, comprehensive & regulated" "coverage"

you pick doesn't have out of pockets that are so high you still can't afford care. Of course, if you're lucky, you have an income that will allow you to purchase a policy that has low out of pockets.

[tridim]

14. If they do, some other company will get my business.

Yes, there will be companies that comply. Companies that don't comply will not survive as the exchange kicks in.

Seriously, do you understand a single thing about this new law? I've yet to see any proof that you do.

[Statistical]

34. Do you?

The same insurance companies that exist now will be the exchange in the future.

If they wanted to offer low cost, high value insurance they could RIGHT NOW this very second.

Of course low cost, high value insurance for you is high cost low value stock for shareholders. The two goals are mutually exclusive.

Corporations charge the highest possible price the market will bear for a given good or service. Nothing in the HCR changes that except a mandate that insurance can "only" be market up 25% (80% loss ratio).

[Jakes Progress]

47. Some of these posters only know about the celebration.

They have no idea, but they are just along for the party. They like to accuse the questioners of being angry because Obama couldn't wave his hand and make everything perfect. But now they believe, contrary to the facts, that now the hand has been waved and all corporations will now become angels.

Kinda sad.

[Statistical]

33. LOL. You will choose what your employer gives you.

If self employed (or not offered insurance) you will chose among a group of for profit companies whom have anti-trust exemptions and feel no need to compete on price to begin with. They will keep prices the as high as possible for as long as possible while providing the minimum amount of care for the dollar ($0.80 on the dollar by 2016).

While the bill may give you access to insurance that you otherwise wouldn't have it is quite the stretch to think it will magically be "inexpensive, comprehensive and regulated coverage".

If companies wanted to do that they could have done so yesterday. The fact is a corporation (all corporations) exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To maximize profit for shareholders. That is done by exacting the highest possible price the market will bear for lowest possible product.

Check back in 24 months and tell me how that inexpensive & comprehensive coverage is going. :rofl:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

49. LOL

as if wellpoint needs anything from we peasants.

[truedelphi]

50. Cheers. I am beginning to realize my mistake was

not being a lobbyist...

Quick Vinnie. Pass me some of the bubbly before some CEO gets some. (And K & R.)

[Ignis]

6. How do you know that Vinnie doesn't "want our country's future to be better?"

Crystal ball? Telepathy hat? Channeling Ramtha? :shrug:

[tridim]

8. Because he's still lobbying for the status quo, even after HCR passed.

[Ignis]

12. Do you understand the False Dichotomy fallacy?

Just because Vinnie says "I hate apples" doesn't mean that he loves oranges.

Just because Vinnie (and others) disagree with you about the means through which to help Americans achieve better health care doesn't mean he does not want Americans to have better health care.

Why don't we ask Vinnie his goals, rather than pretend we can read his fucking mind, eh?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

15. +1 Logic FTW. n/t

[tridim]

17. The "means" you speak of are now the LAW.

Improvements are forthcoming and will be bound to these means.

Spreading FUD about the law after the fact is pointless, and helps nobody other than the opposition.

[Ignis]

21. Criticism and "want{ing} our country's future to be better" are mutually exclusive?

How so?

I'd say that Vinnie's very concern is that any "improvements {that} are forthcoming" will be enacted at a snail's pace--decades later--and in fits and starts that will be hampered and fought at every juncture along the way by the industry being regulated. That's what I took away from his cigarette analogy, anyway.

Again, how do you know that Vinnie does not "want our country's future to be better?"

Edit: Too many quotation marks. I think they're breeding.

[laughingliberal]

28. They are mutually exclusive if 'our team' is in charge. nt

[Ignis]

43. Sadly, this does appear to be the prevailing mindset.

I think we grew so used to equating criticism with contempt during the Bush years that it's hard for some to differentiate between "I hate Obama's policies" and "I hate Obama."

I'll get out there and pull the lever for anyone with a (D) behind their name when push comes to shove, but that doesn't mean I have to embrace every single policy point they promote. I've held my nose and voted for DiFi for years, despite the fact that she's a horrible warmonger. So it goes.

[Marr]

24. Right. Election season wasn't the time for criticism... and of course,

we all needed to show faith and not talk about the sell-outs while the legislation was being put together. And now that the legislation has passed, complaining only helps the Republicans.

So basically, you're saying just shut-up and vote when told to. Yes, that's a winning approach. Good luck with that.

[laughingliberal]

29. +1000

So much for 'we have to pass this so we can start changing it.'

[eridani]

51. So what is your plan B after your attempt to "improve" it gets blown off with

--the excuse that "We've already DONE health care"?

[laughingliberal]

26. Yeah, this is nuts! People who keep talking about working for progress and improving the bill

attack any time some of what's wrong is pointed out. Up is down.

[Marr]

20. *edit*

[laughingliberal]

25. And if you don't acknowledge the problems with the bill, you will work for progess, how?

The continued beating up of people pointing out the problems this bill creates leads me to believe the talk of 'future progress' has been just that-talk.

[readmoreoften]

55. You anti-union DLC thugs benefit from all our hard work, so now it's even.

Wait, no it's not. Most of you DLC thugs are members of the ruling class--you don't work! And I'm as likely to lose in this healthcare scenario as win. Thanks for nothing.

[amborin]

4. Big Pharma even moreso:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7987784&mesg_id=7987784

[county worker]

5. I believe we have to go this route to get to a public option.

What you say is right and it may just be what we need to go further. So let's get out there and demand a public option or even single payer.

[dajoki]

9. Single payer should be the goal n/t

[stillwaiting]

23. Amen! It's STILL time for single payer and I hope true advocates do not stop advocating for

single payer and increasing our ranks.

When the shit hits the fan with this legislation down the road and it WILL as people's eyes open up and people realize bankruptcies are still occurring, people are still being denied care for "fraud", people are still dying because of insurance company shenanigans, etc. there will be another demand for further health care reform, and it MUST be single payer. Oh, but look at that! Insurance company profits are doing better than ever! Record highs!

I want to be wrong about the above predictions (that quite a few other DUers have), but I don't believe I'm going to be and that's why I have been very reluctant to accept this legislation as a win for progressives and liberals. I see it as a win for the insurance industry.

They'll probably dangle the public option in front of us and again roll it back OR allow a "public option" that's only open to a very, very SELECT few that just so coincidentally allows big insurance to further increase their products. We just can't accept that or it's what we'll get.

We have GOT to get serious about raising hell in Washington if we are ever going to get what we deserve, and we just haven't done that yet.

We have to make them do it, and that's just not going to happen with a single rally. It's going to be a long, drawn out protracted fight if it's ever going to happen, and I do not have the answers right now as to how we can feasibly pull it off, but we have to find a way.

Thankfully most DUers believe that this is just the beginning of the health care fight and that fight is STILL going on today. I think we as a community need to rally around that idea.

[leftofcool]

11. Didn't we demand one of those the first time?

[Ignis]

13. No! Well...unless you read the 2008 Democratic Party platform:

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options.

Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

-- http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

But we obviously can't hold the Blue Dogs to supporting something in their/our own party platform, can we? That would be so terribly, awfully rude and inconvenient!

Let's attack progressives while they're down, instead!

[pampango]

16. Or perhaps a big defeat. Didn't they buy influence with republicans, too.

Is it your contention that Big Insurance "bought" enough Democratic votes (including the entire Progressive Caucus) to pass the bill, while at the same time they funded the republicans (who are owned by the Big Insurance, of course) to run against the bill in November, which is the reason they unanimously opposed it. Now if the republicans are successful in this fall's elections, they can then try to "kill the bill" (that the insurance companies paid the Democrats to pass).

We've all heard of interest groups "bribing" both parties to get members of Congress to vote the way they want them to. This is the first time I have heard a theory that an interest group paid one party to pass a bill, while paying the other party to oppose it so that the latter can run to repeal the bill in the next session of Congress.

I am still a little confused as to why the industry would pay Democrats to pass this ("piece of crap", "insurance company bailout") bill, while at the same time paying the republicans to unanimously oppose it so that they can more effectively run against it in the fall. ;)

[leftofcool]

31. Good question. All I know is that their stocks are soaring

so are the stocks of big pharma.

[WeekendWarrior]

18. You know

I keep hearing that, but why in hell did they fight so hard and spend so much money to defeat it? That just doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't say it's a BIG victory. But they are certainly lucky to at least still be in business. They have that to hang onto.

Yes, the mandate will give them more funds, but the inability to deny care to people with pre-existing conditions, etc., and having to put 80% their intake toward actual healthcare expenses will undercut that gain.

Again, the bill isn't perfect and needs to be fixed. But it's certainly not a BIG victory.

[tridim]

19. +1 nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Don't think logically...

It's your first mistake!

Insurance companies will be required to provide coverage to people they don't want to cover at a cost that's less than what they would like to charge. And they won't be able to set lifetime limits and they won't be able to use recissions to cut off unprofitable enrollees.

What I find curious is that the haters use two arguments simultaneously:

1. It's a massive corporate giveaway! It's corporate welfare!
2. Insurance companies will use loopholes to get out of it!

So if it's a massive giveaway to the insurance industry, then why in heaven's name would they be trying to get out of it?

As I said. Don't think logically.

[Uncle Joe]

30. If you're the most despised entity; how do you get what you want?

One way to do it is run your pleas through a third party, in this case the Chamber of Commerce, but that's only one aspect.

The other is to use reverse psychology, the "please don't throw me in the brier patch" approach and make no mistake about it, the for profit "health" insurance corporations know they're despised, they were told as much as if they couldn't read it for them selves.

Consider what the public would have thought had the for profit "health" insurance corporations not run any opposition or supported this bill?

Would the American People have wondered why, particularly after Harry and Louise?

I believe if that scenario had taken place even more red flags would have been raised in the publics' mind in regards to mandates and such.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/1...

(Scarborough also asked, perhaps sincerely, why the insurance companies haven't run their own "Harry and Louise" campaign to kill this bill if they actually hate it and don't secretly see it as a subsidy to them. The answer is that Frank Luntz warned last year against raising the industry's profile in a debate where they are the entities most despised by the public -- and that they have instead run their campaign against reform through other corporate outfits, notably the mammoth U.S. Chamber of Commerce.)

Their premiums can and will be raised while their expenses can be manipulated either through them selves or the for profit hospitals, but the government imposed mandate to purchase their product will continue to grow with the American Population.

[Vinnie From Indy]

32. You are absolutely right Uncle Joe!

It is obvious one of the details of the no longer secret deal between the Obama folks and big insurance was that each party would do their part to SELL this thing. Obama publicly supported a PO knowing it would never be in a bill for his signature and the insurance companies put up a few tens of millions in muted opposition to keep their franchise alive. I find it mildly amusing the lengths people will go to delude themselves about aspects of this saga. It would certainly seem obvious that were there a real chance of getting a workable PO the insurance companies would have spent ten, twenty or thirty times what they spent to get this sweetheart bill. In the long run, the money they spent to hoodwink the American public was dirt cheap compared to having real competition.

[Ignis]

44. +1 for the briar patch analogy.

I can't believe how often I've seen the "the current HCR bill is good because the insurance companies are fighting against it" meme trotted out to quell criticism on DU over the past few weeks, but it worries me that so many of us fell for it.

[glitch]

63. They're evil, not stupid. 5 year olds are capable of using reverse psychology to get what they want

Yet somehow the "centrists" have never heard of it.

[eridani]

53. Certainly it makes sense. If your industry is slightly less popular than the plague

--how could you support a bill you wanted by being for it publicly? It would be the kiss of death. The way you get it through is by opposing it.

[pitohui]

27. sure they did, that's why they're screaming so loud

:eyes:

i had no idea that big insurance was all heart and hated money until i read DU -- some of the posts i've encountered here are truly hysterically funny and nonlogical

what "jeff in milwaukie" said, i wish i had his way w. words

[ecstatic]

36. If kids and sick adults can get care now, does it really matter?

Would you begrudge people getting care just to stick it to insurance companies?

[Uncle Joe]

37. This isn't about sticking it to insurance companies, this is about

breaking an illogical addiction that has, is and will kill kids and sick adults, the current passed dysfunctional HCR bill notwithstanding.

They had the votes to pass a strong national public option and decided to keep the American People subjected to a redundant blood money profiting industry having nothing to do with health care.

Health care will continue to be out of reach because they didn't address the core, structural problem; that being the concept of for profit insurance as a solution to the nation's health care.

[Skittles]

52. they can get insurance

actual healthcare? good luck with that

[eridani]

54. Yes, saving some at the expense of others is vile

Reducing the numbers of dead makes those who still die even less noticable.

[readmoreoften]

57. +1. The word "solidarity" is foreign to these people.

[eridani]

60. Our righteous NEW solidarity slogan--

An injury to one is just an injury to one--don't sweat it!

[HughMoran]

68. Those opposed have repeatedly made it clear

They don't give a shit who has to die in order that they might get the perfect solution in just one vote.

[NYC_SKP]

38. So what you're saying is that Republicans were trying to Save Us from This.

cool.

[Uncle Joe]

39. The Republicans first came up with this idea, it took an overwhelming Democratic Majority to pass it...

Anything the Republicans are doing to oppose it now, is just for their partisan political purposes, they're as happy as pigs in slop.

The only adjustment I see the Republicans working to pass when they come back to power will be to increase the fines on the people.

[NYC_SKP]

40. Those Republicans are Sure Fickle! nt

[Uncle Joe]

41. That's because it's just politics and power to them, policy be damned.

[progressoid]

62. Not fickle. Just playing a political game.

They only fought it because it's a Democratic plan. In reality, it's very similar to what they wanted.


http://healthca.newamerica.net/blogposts/2008/reform_newt_gingrich_on_free_riders_and_the_individual_mandate-18127

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx


Sadly, many Democrats are supporting it just because it's a Democratic plan, not for it's merits (which are far outnumbered by it's flaws).

[Green_Lantern]

42. yes the insurance industry sure loves being regulated..

Are you telling me this bill requiring insurances to spend 85% of premiums on health spending is a give away to insurances?

[Uncle Joe]

46. Yes because of the continually growing government enforced mandates to purchase their

redundant product.

The pool will grow with the population as will their premiums.

But the giveaway isn't just to the insurance corporations, the corporate media will benefit as well being able to continue selling their commercials and advertising and Congress will have a perpetual income stream loop flowing back to them in the form of bribery/lobbying money, something they wouldn't have with non-profit universal single payer coverage and something that would be eventually threatened or reduced with a strong national non-profit public option.

[Green_Lantern]

64. as far as the mandate...

First of all you have a case of the shoulds. Yes maybe we should have a single-payer system but we don't and until we do people cannot afford health care without some sort of insurance.

This bill regulates insurance more than it's ever been regulated before and by the way it does create a nonprofit alternative in every exchange.

[Uncle Joe]

66. The point is, there was a much better alternative that could have passed in the Senate,

the votes were there for a strong national public option via reconciliation and Durbin knew it, that's why he threatened his little nuclear option had he thought there weren't enough votes, he would have let the HCR Amendment die by vote.

While there are some good things in this bill, it's the equivalent of redecorating a burning house, the state wide exchange system will be much weaker and the structural problem is in the for profit coverage system.

Furthermore I believe this bill will damage Democrats from a political perspective and when the Republicans come back to power, they will only work to make it more in favor for the corporations and against the people.

As for "shoulds", the Titanic should have been built with a double hull, perhaps 1200+ people wouldn't have died.

This HCR bill was an opportunity to build a new ship and apparently not much was learned from having the nation having to rely on the inherent, dysfunctional, illogical, immoral, redundant, structural for profit "health" coverage system, they just institutionalized it.

[Green_Lantern]

67. you're dreaming if you think the votes were there for Medicare for

All in the Senate. The Democrats had to use reconciliation in order to pass this bill and avoid filibuster, it had nothing to do with the public option. The public option probably doesn't have 51 votes.

[Uncle Joe]

69. I never said Medicare for all, but that was a nice try, I reposted the relevant excerpt from my

post #66 for your reading enjoyment.

"The point is, there was a much better alternative that could have passed in the Senate,

the votes were there for a strong national public option via reconciliation and Durbin knew it, that's why he threatened his little nuclear option had he thought there weren't enough votes, he would have let the HCR Amendment die by vote."

Medicare for all or universal coverage would be the best solution but I never said the votes for that were in the Senate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7898669#7898691

But Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) just announced that he would tell Democratic senators to OPPOSE all amendments, including a public option amendment, if offered on the Senate floor.

<snip>

Check out Durbin's absurd rationale for voting no on all amendments:

“We know the Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, and some of them may be appealing to Democrats, but we have to urge them to stick with the bill.”

[Green_Lantern]

70. I wasn't trying to spin what you said my apologies

But generally I thought the public option meant a type of Medicare buy in option.

And your link says only 40 Senators said they'd have supported the public option.

Durbin said to vote against amendments because adding them would've resulted in 17 Dem Senators voting with the 41 Republicans against the bill.

[Uncle Joe]

71. Do you have a link to that statement?

"Durbin said to vote against amendments because adding them would've resulted in 17 Dem Senators voting with the 41 Republicans against the bill."

[Green_Lantern]

72. it's in the forum post you linked to...

It said 40 Senators have said they'd support it and 57 minus 40 is.......17.

[Uncle Joe]

73. Do you mean this sentence?

"This is an urgent action alert...

40 senators -- including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer -- promised to vote "yes" on the public option...and more are promising every day."

That doesn't seem static to me.

[Green_Lantern]

74. I don't believe that more are coming around....

If Durbin was confident he had 51 Dems backing it he'd do it. I don't buy that he has some ulterior motive for doing other than that he thinks it'll result in the bill's defeat.

[Uncle Joe]

75. Are you certain he would do it?

If Durbin truly supported the public option he would have aggressively whipped for it, let the vote take place and then let those opposing it pay the political consequences in November, the public has been and is overwhelming in support of a public option and Durbin knows this.

As to whether 51 Dems would have voted for it, we will never know because Durbin killed it.

The only question in my mind is whether he killed it because he opposed it or because he thought the Obama Administration had sold out the public option back in August to the for profit hospitals and this was Durbin's way of protecting the Administration?

[Green_Lantern]

76. no it is a way to assure this bill won't be defeated by adding

Amendments that result in not having the 51 votest necessary to pass the bill. On Countdown last night they even said Republicans will vote to put these amendments in too because they know it'll kill the bill.

We don't have the luxury to wait until November if the GOP defeats this bill.

[Uncle Joe]

77. The way I see it, the passage of a structurally and politically flawed bill/law will only

work to ensure that the Republicans do gain power in November.

This bill/law institutionalizes the concept of a redundant, illogical, immoral, fiscally irresponsible for profit industry having nothing to do with health care, to profit from the American People's injury, illness and death.

This bill/law also creates a De Facto mandated cash flow loop sending a cut of those blood money profits back to the Congress in the form of bribery/lobbying and the corporate media via commercials/advertising. Logically speaking this adverse dynamic can only work against the American People's best interests.

The same conflict of interest saturated corporate media will do their best to make sure the Republicans return to power in order to cement the law while eventually making it more draconian against the people and friendlier to the corporate media's commercial buying corporate clients. They will do so by continually airing and promoting right wing criticism of the HCR law while totally ignoring, trashing or obfuscating left wing criticism.

ie; "Socialism," or "big government take over" etc. etc. will be aired 24/7, but the pros of single payer universal coverage or a strong public option as compared to a for profit system will barely be mentioned, if at all.

This partisan one sided propaganda criticism will distort the nation's political center of gravity, and thus aid the Republicans' return to power.

[Green_Lantern]

78. no, the way I see it is that the GOP will be hurt by...

Trying to repeal this bill and the Dems will be able to say the GOP voted against the good elements of the bill. There are things in the bill with immense public support such as the ban on preexisting condition denial.

The GOP has nothing to run on regarding health care.

All the other things you mentioned already happen with or without this bill.

[Uncle Joe]

79. That's not true.

"All the other things you mentioned already happen with or without this bill."

This part doesn't happen without this HCR bill/law.

"This bill/law also creates a De Facto mandated cash flow loop sending a cut of those blood money profits back to the Congress in the form of bribery/lobbying and the corporate media via commercials/advertising. Logically speaking this adverse dynamic can only work against the American People's best interests."

The long term impact of this dynamic will be a strengthening of the for profit "health" insurance industry's grip on "We the People's" government and in turn the people, while the pool of profit to draw from continually grows as our nation's population increases, and with recent SC decisions allowing unlimited corporate funding of political processes, universal single payer coverage or even a strong national public option stands a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing.

Thus we become saddled with an inefficient, immoral, illogical and redundant for profit system.

[Green_Lantern]

80. the SC decision didn't remove ban on corporate financing of elections...

It simply removed the ban on corporate sponsorship of issue ads which was a stupid and dangerous decision.

As far as increasing insurance grip on Americans, give me a break. Any sick person who needs to have insurance to pay for medical care knows insurance already has a grip on us. At least now this bill control insurance as it's never been regulated before.

This bill goes pretty far considering we have mostly corporate shills in the Senate. Vote them out and we can get the public option.

Alot of DUers act like we have 51 progressive Senators willing to do this.

[Uncle Joe]

81. I never said "corporate financing" of elections but nice try, I have reposted the relevant paragraph

from my post #79 with bolding for your reading enjoyment.

"The long term impact of this dynamic will be a strengthening of the for profit "health" insurance industry's grip on "We the People's" government and in turn the people, while the pool of profit to draw from continually grows as our nation's population increases, and with recent SC decisions allowing unlimited corporate funding of political processes, universal single payer coverage or even a strong national public option stands a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing."

You can argue if you like that unlimited advocacy of any issue from mega-corporations doesn't translate into political outcomes during an election but I find this argument to be specious at best, if not disingenuous.

Also I never said the for profit "health" insurance industry didn't already have a grip, I said this bill will strengthen the grip.

[Green_Lantern]

82. that's the second time you've accused me of spinning things you

Say. Funding of political processes could easily be interpreted as "corporate financing of elections."

[Uncle Joe]

83. Words have meaning and maybe you didn't intend to spin what I said.

But in my book "political processes" is a broad term and I used it intentionally because issue advocacy almost inevitably affects politics.

Peace to you.

[eridani]

56. Yes. 15 states already attempt to regulate insurance with required MLRs

They have utterly and abjectly failed. Might that be because states are stuck will the data they get from exactly those people who benefit finanacially from fudging it?

[earth mom]

45. The major victory was the mandate. Everything else won't matter because those fuckers

will find ways to screw everyone just like they've always done.

But this time, they can do it while they take EVERYONES money AND stab ALL OF US in the back.

[Ignis]

48. Oh, I'm sure any abuses will be promptly investigated.

And if any wrong-doing is found, well, of course there will be an out-of-court settlement made for a fraction of the damages claimed...after a decade or two of appeals.

Swift justice! :patriot:

[eridani]

59. Yep! Dear Mr and Mrs Sarkisain:

We were sorry to hear that your daughter Nataline died because CIGNA denied your claim for her liver transplant. However, you will be glad to know that we have analyzed CIGNA’s medical loss ratio and that all of their customers are entitled to premium refunds. Isn’t that wonderful?

Yours truly,
Dr. Pangloss

[DailyGrind51]

58. But, if the Republicans were against it, it must be good, right? ;-}

[slipslidingaway]

61. knr - their victory was to silence the movement for a national, not for profit

HC system - they won for now.

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

[AllyCat]

65. And look at the health care stocks! Pharmaceutical stocks...

A few health insurance company stocks have fallen, but many are doing very, very well and a nice 100 point gain for the DJIA (aka robber baron index).