Steve1 Political Rants

[Tommy Gun]

I agree when you look at it that way only.
But isnt there some cost controls and some regulations to control insurance companies etc built into it too??

Yes, the "good" components (prexisting conditions and some additional regulation) could be supplemented with the removal of interstate barriers and tort reform at a minimum. Unfortunately politics have made most believe that the Republicans had no alternative plan or ideas; nothing could be farther from the truth. Unfotunately we'll likely never see a compromise bill at this point. Because the D's had 60 votes they shut out the R's for the last year; it's not likely the R's will play nice now that Obama needs them.

[catastrophe]

Yes, the "good" components (prexisting conditions and some additional regulation) could be supplemented with the removal of interstate barriers and tort reform at a minimum. Unfortunately politics have made most believe that the Republicans had no alternative plan or ideas; nothing could be farther from the truth. Unfotunately we'll likely never see a compromise bill at this point. Because the D's had 60 votes they shut out the R's for the last year; it's not likely the R's will play nice now that Obama needs them.

The country needs them as well.
But I see your point completely.

[VtSteve]

Yes, the "good" components (prexisting conditions and some additional regulation) could be supplemented with the removal of interstate barriers and tort reform at a minimum. Unfortunately politics have made most believe that the Republicans had no alternative plan or ideas; nothing could be farther from the truth. Unfotunately we'll likely never see a compromise bill at this point. Because the D's had 60 votes they shut out the R's for the last year; it's not likely the R's will play nice now that Obama needs them.

There were some great Republican ideas, most were shot down in favor of a Republican plan that does little or nothing for anyone. This is all business on both sides. I'm actually amazed the Dems got as much from the Senate plan as they did. Thankfully, the House plan would never see the light of day.

The largest component of waste in the healthcare system as structured is red tape and paperwork. Administrative costs are huge, which is why the healthcare industry keeps growing. There's profit in paperwork, so I don't expect that to get cutout anytime soon.

There's a huge difference between healthcare and health insurance. Unfortunately, it's easy to make people think they are one in the same. With any of the ideas proposed so far, from either party, healthcare costs will continue to spiral upward, Medicare/Medicaid will continue to eat up a disproportionate chunk of the budgets, and private health insurance will continue to be burdensome to anybody or company that pays it. The day of reckoning will be when people/companies stop paying, or pass so much of the cost to employees that they say Stop.

Until then, I expect little to change. New hires will probably be offered lesser plans, or have to pay more and more of their paychecks than older employees. Medicare will have to stop the bleeding at some point, and will continue to ask for more dollars, and pay even less to doctors and hospitals. In case anybody has any strange notions, seniors now that have Medicare only are not treated, shall we say, the same as those with great plans from previous employers plus Medicare. There are different levels of healthcare, has been for years.

As the Boomer generation continues to retire in great numbers, this will all come to a head soon enough. I guarantee that all the political ideology and sound-bites in the world will not stop the enormous demand for a change in the system as it exists. No politician can survive the focused attack of 60 million seniors

[LaughingCat]

Does anyone care about the bottom line cost to ourselves instead of the balance of power between two parties? The way I read the general arguments, it's basically whoever wins this health insurance debate comes out stronger politically. But what about you and I paying outrageous amounts for health insurance?

[LaughingCat]

On another note, why did the Republicans vote against reinstalling "Pay as You Go" which they eliminated in the early 2000's? I thought they were pushing a new fiscal responsibility movement. It's gonna be hard to ride Newt G's coat-tails again, and get fiscally conservative Independents back on board, if they go against fiscal conservatism.

Steve 1, any insight on this?

[Tommy Gun]

Great question.

[sledge]

That's kind of the point. Currently, all of the uninsured, including illegal aliens ARE fully covered. They walk right into the hospital and get help. In fact, if they have the flu, which would normally take some medicine at a low price, they walk into the hospital, get teh medicine and then the insurance companies, the state and the people who pay insurance premiums pick up the huge bill for their visit.

That's exactly what I've been thinking....a lot of these costs are built in to premiums already. Between local taxes and insurance premiums, we're already spending money covering "uninsureds". But the ins cos don't want people to realize this...I think they're writing the legislation on both sides so either way they win.

Tort reform ought to pay for pre-existing conditions. And if we started taking the responsibility off employers and putting the purchasing power in consumers' hands, ins cos would suddenly start being competitive in their pricing.

Or would you prefer something that brings your cost down as well?

What I have yet to hear proposed is how any of these costs will actually be lower. The only way that can happen is to expand the cost base. That's the reasoning behind forcing people to pay for something they may not want to. But if we say there's 30 million people who aren't paying for insurance, how many of those can afford it? I don't think there's enough people out there that can afford it, but choose to forgo it, to make a big enough difference in premiums for everyone. So that still leaves a hole to fill when trying to cover uninsureds. Whether through taxes or premium increases, nothing on the table lowers costs of healthcare.

[LaughingCat]

That's exactly what I've been thinking....a lot of these costs are built in to premiums already. Between local taxes and insurance premiums, we're already spending money covering "uninsureds". But the ins cos don't want people to realize this...I think they're writing the legislation on both sides so either way they win.

Tort reform ought to pay for pre-existing conditions. And if we started taking the responsibility off employers and putting the purchasing power in consumers' hands, ins cos would suddenly start being competitive in their pricing.

And add the ability for all insurance companies to sell in all states, competition will drive prices down. Of course, the insurance companies must be regulated so either a Federal set of regulations get put into place or let the Fed regulate the insurnace companies instead of each state.

States don't work with each other as it is. Too many differing rules and barriers to entry on the state level.

[LaughingCat]

What I have yet to hear proposed is how any of these costs will actually be lower. The only way that can happen is to expand the cost base. That's the reasoning behind forcing people to pay for something they may not want to. But if we say there's 30 million people who aren't paying for insurance, how many of those can afford it? I don't think there's enough people out there that can afford it, but choose to forgo it, to make a big enough difference in premiums for everyone. So that still leaves a hole to fill when trying to cover uninsureds. Whether through taxes or premium increases, nothing on the table lowers costs of healthcare.

Maybe deduct it from their welfare or unemployment benefits. We already AUTOMATICALLY deduct it from every Social Security recipient and they have no choice.

[sledge]

I'll take a Big Mac and a flu shot....to go....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/s...,4941835.story

[sledge]

And add the ability for all insurance companies to sell in all states, competition will drive prices down. Of course, the insurance companies must be regulated so either a Federal set of regulations get put into place or let the Fed regulate the insurnace companies instead of each state.

States don't work with each other as it is. Too many differing rules and barriers to entry on the state level.

I don't buy that entirely but perhaps it depends on the type of insurance. There are plenty of insurance companies that "do business" in multiple states. But yes, due to the state-regulatory nature they aren't allowed to commingle their businesses. I'm not convinced that opening the intrastate borders would improve costs for everybody. The competition aspect seems to be the leading driver in that idea but at what point would we have the potential for a similar scenario to our property insurance debacle here in Florida. So much competition that ins cos weren't adequately funded.

FWIW, I think I'd be against a federal regulator at this point. I have first hand experience at the state and federal regulatory level. Part of the reason you rarely hear of an insurance company (not including prop ins here in FL) going under is because of rigorous state level oversight.

[sledge]

Maybe deduct it from their welfare or unemployment benefits.

My thinking is that there is a significant portion of the population that can barely afford to live at their current payrate. That's right, they are "working", but how much insurance can you afford when you're working 20-30hrs/wk at $10/hr? And their employers are quite happy to have part timers that they aren't required to offer or provide any benefits for.


The bottom line is you either make it cost less, or raise the price. There is no magical way to provide more coverage and charge less to provide it.

[rbhudelson]

And add the ability for all insurance companies to sell in all states, competition will drive prices down. Of course, the insurance companies must be regulated so either a Federal set of regulations get put into place or let the Fed regulate the insurnace companies instead of each state.

States don't work with each other as it is. Too many differing rules and barriers to entry on the state level.

NEWS FLASH: Insurance companies can, and do, sell policies in any state they so choose. All they have to do is build or rent a network of providers and get approved by the state insurance commissioner. Insurance products are regulated at the state level and personally, it would be a huge mistake for that to change.

The reason most carriers do not operate in all the states is because they can't compete with the carriers that have gone in and built (negotiated) their own networks.

[Birdog]

And add the ability for all insurance companies to sell in all states, competition will drive prices down. Of course, the insurance companies must be regulated so either a Federal set of regulations get put into place or let the Fed regulate the insurnace companies instead of each state.

States don't work with each other as it is. Too many differing rules and barriers to entry on the state level.

They can sell in all states, But each state has it's own rules for what must be covered..stupid chit like, suicide counseling..etc..

The Federal Gov CAN NOT make the states all do one thing if they dont want to...The Constitution forbids that power

[Tinkerer]

LaughingCat - how old are you ???

You made the statement that you wanted the GOV. to pay for it.

Where do you think the GOV gets their money???

There isn't any GOV program that saves money over the private market.

The only way the GOV can cut costs is to LIMIT services.

THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER WAY

If you think you can save $ by not paying the hospitals and doctors as much that will work for a short time untill the GOV owns ALL of the hospitals after they go under.
OH and you wont have any more doctors either since why would a doctor stay in that profession when they could be a politician and make more $. Or maybe even a union janitor.

[BBB725]

At least the bill does something about uninsured and illegals getting everything for free and sticking it to the paying people. Stick it to the government instead. Status quo costs you and me more money. I may not like the government being involved, but I;m not stupid. I want to pay less.

And with the government involved you think you will pay less?

[Tinkerer]

HE must be young and uninformed.

[LaughingCat]

You guys are right, the Feds cannot mandate over the states. I am looking at this the same as THE NFL, MLB, NASCAR, etc. Each team (state) has major control over their actions and cars, but there are league (federal) rules and guidelines that must be followed. The idea is fair competition.

When it comes to most facets of our economy and lives, the government does not help when they intervene. But when you have major issues, such as healthcare and defense, there should be some level of national organization to make it both effective and productive.

I am not prepared to argue these points effectively, nor am I holding out that the government is the solution to our problems. But there is some level of sanity in the belief that something as large as healthcare, which has a dramatic rippling effect on our entire economy is important enough to have some league-wide (read: Federal) guidelines put in place to promote fair competition, effectiveness and sanity.

If you believe the government cannot truly coordinate anything on a national/federal level, then all you of you SHOULD INSIST on the immediate dissolution of the Army, Navy Air Force and Marines and move everyone to the state level National Guard and police forces. Then our president can beg each state to send their troops when they deem appropriate.

[Birdog]

You guys are right, the Feds cannot mandate over the states. I am looking at this the same as THE NFL, MLB, NASCAR, etc. Each team (state) has major control over their actions and cars, but there are league (federal) rules and guidelines that must be followed. The idea is fair competition.

When it comes to most facets of our economy and lives, the government does not help when they intervene. But when you have major issues, such as healthcare and defense, there should be some level of national organization to make it both effective and productive.

I am not prepared to argue these points effectively, nor am I holding out that the government is the solution to our problems. But there is some level of sanity in the belief that something as large as healthcare, which has a dramatic rippling effect on our entire economy is important enough to have some league-wide (read: Federal) guidelines put in place to promote fair competition, effectiveness and sanity.

If you believe the government cannot truly coordinate anything on a national/federal level, then all you of you SHOULD INSIST on the immediate dissolution of the Army, Navy Air Force and Marines and move everyone to the state level National Guard and police forces. Then our president can beg each state to send their troops when they deem appropriate.

Not to piss you off...You really should read the constitution...It is not the NFL..It is what this country was founded on. Sorta important
I dont trust any of these DC crooks to start mucking with it..Do You ?

I am not saying i dont think it would help to sell in all states, It's just that the Fed cant legaly force it {THANK GOD}

BTW..National defense IS one of the few things the Fed is allowed to do

[Tommy Gun]

Not to piss you off...You really should read the constitution...It is not the NFL..It is what this country was founded on. Sorta important
I dont trust any of these DC crooks to start mucking with it..Do You ?

I am not saying i dont think it would help to sell in all states, It's just that the Fed cant legaly force it {THANK GOD}

BTW..National defense IS one of the few things the Fed is allowed to do

So if nationalizing insurance regulation is against the constitution why is the mandatory purchase of insurance not; and why, now that states are passing laws exempting them from this rule, are we being told that these State laws are unenforceable?