Steve1 Political Rants

[Birdog]

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?

You lost me here ?..."Mandatory buying of insurance" is against the constitution {On a Federal level} States can make it mandatory.

And..."Why are we being told this is unenforceableibe?"..They can tell you whatever they want, doesnt make it true. Again..READ the Constitution, It is VERY clear about Federal powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.........9th Amendment

[LaughingCat]

Hi BirdDog,
Just wanted to say that your comments did not piss me off. Been busy AND have been meaning to go read the Constitution again. I was simply trying to come up with a sensible analogy.

Maybe part of the solution on this health insurance debate would be to remove their exemption from Federal anti-trust laws. Consdiering the upward spiraling of the premiums, deductibles and other measures meant to drive the profits up, maybe the renewed threat of a corporate break-up might bring them to the table with cost-saving ideas.

Again, I could be going off on a wild, government expending rant, but when I look at my monthly premiums, I cannot help but look for ways to drive them down and benefit myself. . . the small business owner.

[Tommy Gun]

You lost me here ?..."Mandatory buying of insurance" is against the constitution {On a Federal level} States can make it mandatory.

And..."Why are we being told this is unenforceableibe?"..They can tell you whatever they want, doesnt make it true. Again..READ the Constitution, It is VERY clear about Federal powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.........9th Amendment

I'll try and clarify:

Proposed Federal Health Care reform bill would make the purchase of insurance mandatory or you will be fined. Is this constitutional? Obviously those in favor believe it is.

Many States are pursuing laws that would exempt you from the Federal requirment. Is this constitutional? Some say yes others say the Federal law overides the States.

[Chris]

The executive and legislative branches of our government view the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as an impediment. Only the judicial cares, but a big chunk of them like twisting its interpretation to fit their own personal viewpoints.

There are no shortage of bills put forth in Congress that are far from being constitutional. And a number of them become laws. It takes litigation to overturn them. and someone has to want to.

The executive branch is no better. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was abhorrently unconstitutional, particularly the NRA portion of it. It gave the president absolute power to fix wages and prices and total authority to regulate interstate commerce.

[sledge]

Has anybody read any good research on exactly why premiums have gone up so much?

I think yet another problem we're facing with the disconnect in DC is them not fixing the real problem. The big message is that everyone needs to have medical insurance (another underfunded entitlement). But the real problem in healthcare is rising costs. There's nothing that's been proposed that would really reduce the costs.

So what will truly bring down the cost of healthcare to the point where people who have chosen not to buy insurance will feel there is some value there?

[Birdog]

Hi BirdDog,
Just wanted to say that your comments did not piss me off. Been busy AND have been meaning to go read the Constitution again. I was simply trying to come up with a sensible analogy.

Maybe part of the solution on this health insurance debate would be to remove their exemption from Federal anti-trust laws. Consdiering the upward spiraling of the premiums, deductibles and other measures meant to drive the profits up, maybe the renewed threat of a corporate break-up might bring them to the table with cost-saving ideas.

Again, I could be going off on a wild, government expending rant, but when I look at my monthly premiums, I cannot help but look for ways to drive them down and benefit myself. . . the small business owner.

It is a HUGe mess, I agree. I just dont like them playing games with the Constitution...Wish i had the answer to health care !

[Birdog]

The executive and legislative branches of our government view the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as an impediment. Only the judicial cares, but a big chunk of them like twisting its interpretation to fit their own personal viewpoints.

There are no shortage of bills put forth in Congress that are far from being constitutional. And a number of them become laws. It takes litigation to overturn them. and someone has to want to.

The executive branch is no better. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was abhorrently unconstitutional, particularly the NRA portion of it. It gave the president absolute power to fix wages and prices and total authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Chris writes much nicer than I do...

[LaughingCat]

That's why he is the Serious King

[Tommy Gun]

No I am the KING!

[Chris]

So what will truly bring down the cost of healthcare to the point where people who have chosen not to buy insurance will feel there is some value there?

Simple- open, borderless competition.

The states need to clean house on their insurance commissions and pull them out from under the governance of the state's legislatures. An insurance commission run by someone elected by and accountable to the people would be a good first step. National standards couldn't hurt either. Having 50 different sets of rules adds costs.

That's one thing national health care would provide- an end run around the states. But you can't expect a government agency to run it in a cost-effective manner. It's not an inherent charachteristic of a government bureaucracy.

[rbhudelson]

Has anybody read any good research on exactly why premiums have gone up so much?

I think yet another problem we're facing with the disconnect in DC is them not fixing the real problem. The big message is that everyone needs to have medical insurance (another underfunded entitlement). But the real problem in healthcare is rising costs. There's nothing that's been proposed that would really reduce the costs.

So what will truly bring down the cost of healthcare to the point where people who have chosen not to buy insurance will feel there is some value there?

there are about a million cost drivers/contributors for the increases in healthcare costs. The simple answer to your question is one that no one wants to hear. Get healthy. Stop smoking. Stop Drinking in excess. Start exercising. Start eating healthy. Reduce your stress. HOW MANY ARE GOING TO SIGN UP FOR THIS? :-)

healthy people will never value insurance. Only sick people. That is another of those drivers. It's technical term is adverse selection.

Doctors routinely give MRI to someone with a headache for fear they have a clot or aneurism. They do this because of risk of getting sued for malpractice. Which in turn raises malpractice insurance.

Technology is another driver because after a life of abusing alcohol, drugs, women, food, jumping big wakes going over 150 mph in cats our bodies wear out but they can keep us going longer than ever.

Cost shifting from medicare is equal to about 1800 per year of a family's premium.

There are not enough doctors and the insurance companies have squeezed them all they are going to be squeezed. And just like your job and mine, if you are in short supply you have better leverage over pay.

The laws around privacy (HIPAA) are becoming increasingly impossible and very expensive to comply with.

Government mandates on required care another large driver.

Indirectly, FMLA is another large driver of costs to the country. Its the law that allows covered employees to be off for extended periods of time and still have a job to come back to.

at the end of the day it is a very complex system and insurance is just one very small component.

[rbhudelson]

Simple- open, borderless competition.

The states need to clean house on their insurance commissions and pull them out from under the governance of the state's legislatures. An insurance commission run by someone elected by and accountable to the people would be a good first step. National standards couldn't hurt either. Having 50 different sets of rules adds costs.

That's one thing national health care would provide- an end run around the states. But you can't expect a government agency to run it in a cost-effective manner. It's not an inherent charachteristic of a government bureaucracy.

With all due respect Chris - that answer is simply not true.

The states are not the problem here. Neither are the Insurance Commissioners (as a group). They are appointed by the governors or elected by the people. Dont like your insurance commissioner - vote out your governor or them directly.

Insurance companies are free to sell where ever they choose. The insurance companies choose not to operate everywhere - not the states. The biggest reason for this is around building their network. It cost money to negotiate with providers. So even if all the states allowed unencumbered access to any insurance company that wanted they would not be competitive because they wouldn't have as good as discounts as the carriers that have invested in the area. bigger discounts equals lessor premium.

The agent is who creates the competition. i only need two companies to pit against each other to create competition. For instance, here in oklahoma, i routinely market a case with Aetna, United Healthcare, BCBS, The Principle, Coventry & Community Care. but, getting a fair price for a client is way more than just sending out an RFP. There are lots of factors and a great deal of strategy that goes into these negotiations. And frankly, many of which are counter intuitive. This is not like buying widgets.

Lastly, I don't want the states to lose control because if the feds decided to do something i didn't agree with and OK follows suit then maybe i move to texas, kansas or god forbid, arkansas.

[Birdog]

Lastly, I don't want the states to lose control because if the feds decided to do something i didn't agree with and OK follows suit then maybe i move to texas, kansas or god forbid, arkansas.

And that in a Nut-shell is why the founding fathers left the power in the states and NOT with the Fed.

[LaughingCat]

Does anyone know ifthis photo is realy. Apparently, it was a photo glimpse of Palin's hand during her Tea Party appearance. it's the priorities she has a president:

Energy
Budget (crossed out) Cuts
Tax
Lift American Spirits

Let me know if anyone can confirm it.

[MarylandMark]

Indirectly, FMLA is another large driver of costs to the country. Its the law that allows covered employees to be off for extended periods of time and still have a job to come back to.

My employer- 12 people in my immediate work group; 10 have "FMLA chronic conditions" which means 12 weeks a year (not calendar year but 1 year from 1st absence) 100% fully paid days off...

Most of my co-workers have found a way to work the system and get FLMA approval. Once a FMLA "friendly" Doctor is found, their name spreads like wildfire. FLMA friendly Doctors are easy to find- our health insurance is awesome so they actually make money on us as patients so more than willing to fill out some pesky paperwork and have us come in for a monthly check up to keep the dough rolling in.

[Ratickle]

Insurance companies are free to sell where ever they choose.

The short version then. Why do some states only have one carrier? There has to be a reason more than they choose not to operate there. Car insurance, and home owners insurance, operate in almost every state.

[Ratickle]

Good post

Get healthy. Stop smoking. Stop Drinking in excess. Start exercising. Start eating healthy. Reduce your stress. HOW MANY ARE GOING TO SIGN UP FOR THIS? :-)

Insurance should be weighted just like car insurance and life insurance. If you are obese, smoke, drink excessively, use illegal drugs, etc. You should pay much higher premiums. Even if it is a government run health insurance system.

Doctors routinely give MRI to someone with a headache for fear they have a clot or aneurism. They do this because of risk of getting sued for malpractice. Which in turn raises malpractice insurance.

Change tort laws. If the doctor is found to be less than 50% at fault, lawsuit is dismissed and the attorney who filed it is responsible for the defendants expenses.

Technology is another driver because after a life of abusing alcohol, drugs, women, food, jumping big wakes going over 150 mph in cats our bodies wear out but they can keep us going longer than ever.

Once again. If you want to pay more for the more expensive insurance which cover heart transplants, hip replacements at 85 years old, etc. Feel free to do so. Just don't expect me to cover your costs.

Cost shifting from medicare is equal to about 1800 per year of a family's premium.

And that is the oone thing they do not tell you. It is currently estimated that private insurance subsidizes 35% of medicaid/medicare expenses because of the underpayment of expenses to the hospitals and doctors through mandated payment schedules. And the proposal will insure another 45 million people at less than 1/2 the current cost of medicare/medicaid? Impossible. Plus, many medicare people have their own insurance to cover the things medicare doesn't.

The laws around privacy (HIPAA) are becoming increasingly impossible and very expensive to comply with.

I have no answer there, but the proposed system would give the governmennt access to all your records.

Government mandates on required care another large driver.

And those will continue to apply to illegal aliens, uninsured visitors, etc.

Indirectly, FMLA is another large driver of costs to the country. Its the law that allows covered employees to be off for extended periods of time and still have a job to come back to.

Should be repealed. I hope someone does it one of these days. Or at least add something for a maximum of once every ten years or more.

[fund razor]

My employer- 12 people in my immediate work group; 10 have "FMLA chronic conditions" which means 12 weeks a year (not calendar year but 1 year from 1st absence) 100% fully paid days off...

Most of my co-workers have found a way to work the system and get FLMA approval. Once a FMLA "friendly" Doctor is found, their name spreads like wildfire. FLMA friendly Doctors are easy to find- our health insurance is awesome so they actually make money on us as patients so more than willing to fill out some pesky paperwork and have us come in for a monthly check up to keep the dough rolling in.

I had an employee on FMLA for months. We had to hold her job, but she earned no pay after she ran out of sick time and vaca.
Are you their supervisor, do you sign their FMLA paperwork and can you verify that these folks are paid 100% for FMLA days off? If so... my person got screwed, and she's fantastic at FMLA and had really good advice from outside the org.

[Ratickle]

I had an employee on FMLA for months. We had to hold her job, but she earned no pay after she ran out of sick time and vaca.
Are you their supervisor, do you sign their FMLA paperwork and can you verify that these folks are paid 100% for FMLA days off? If so... my person got screwed, and she's fantastic at FMLA and had really good advice from outside the org.

That would have to be their union contract. Pay is not required.

[LaughingCat]

Rat, that wasn't your power plant that exploded today, was it?