Reduces Costs - most Americans will see their health care costs reduced relative to projected levels

[rateyes]

That's part of the Senate plan. Read it again:

Reduces Costs - most Americans will see their health care costs reduced relative to projected levels.


My friends, the first two words of that phrase is oxymoronic to the rest of the phrase.

This DOES NOT REDUCE COSTS. COSTS ARE STILL GOING UP FROM WHERE THEY ARE NOW!

What this says is that the costs will not go as high as they were going---but, they are still going up from here. And, they are too high already.

This bill provided NO competition against the insurance companies. In fact, it's a giveaway to the insurance companies.

Also, in this bill the only "pre-existing condition" clause is for CHILDREN. Have a pre-existing condition as an adult, and don't have health care? TOO FUCKING BAD. YOU.ARE.SCREWED.AGAIN.

Don't you just love the English language, and how people can be manipulated by it?

[Laelth]

1. k&r for the truth, however depressing. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[debbierlus]

2. So, we will stay pay more (and most can't afford CURRENT levels)...

But, it won't be as much

As they say it would be.

Sham.

[rateyes]

4. That's it.

So, when the Senators tell you they are "cutting costs" they are peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining.

[rateyes]

3. "relative to PROJECTED LEVELS."

I project that the next time I play a basketball game I'll score 100 points. But, I'll probably come in lower than what I project.

[dkf]

6. And just think where the unemployment would have been without the stimulus.

Yeah we're all happy happy happy I'm sure.

[ixion]

5. yeah, don't you love the "pre-existing condition" catch-22?

So you can't get insurance because you have a pre-existing condition, then you are fined for not having insurance.

Oh yeah, that's some reform, all right. :eyes:

[rateyes]

8. There you go.

It also leaves 6% of the population uninsured. Hardly universal. Only thing universal will be fines for those who can't afford the premiums.

[rucky]

7. How do you "project" arbitrary increases?

This is the third time the WH has made the "it's not as bad as it would've been" argument (TARP, Stimulus) - which is fine as a third-tier supporting argument - but really convenient, too, because it's impossible to disprove.

[rateyes]

10. Good question.

The companies will project VERY HGH, and then claim victory when they increase it the same amount they were going to increase it in the first place.

[OHdem10]

9. Relative to projected levels.--Sure you can say under the present

Health Insurance, we project some astronomical amount you
will pay in premiums. Naturally anything looks better.

How do the new premium prices compare to what we are actually
paying now?

[laughingliberal]

11. The only thing that had a chance of reducing costs for most Americans

was a kick ass public option. A strong public option was estimated to be able to offer premiums 20% less than the current average premiums. It would have provided that competition to keep the insurance companies honest if strong enough and available to those who wanted to choose it. Once we knew we weren't getting that, the very best we could hope for is premium cost won't go up as fast as they would have. I'm not even sure that's true. The thinking is they should be willing to slow down the increases and cover patients with preexisting conditions since they are getting all these new customers. But, we are talking about an industry which will pay a CEO $12 million a year and let their customers die while they fight over claims. Do we expect them, even now, to play fair.

[clear eye]

12. And it doesn't count the additional taxes to pay for the subsidies. n/t

[rateyes]

13. true.

[spanone]

14. everything goes up....if we can slow the pace, that is good.

[rateyes]

15. Not everything goes up. And, NOTHING goes up at a clip of 35% a year.

Some things come down in price. Televisions. Computers.

REAL reform would provide REAL competition in the marketplace. That would have broght prices down.

[Political Heretic]

16. "relative to projected levels" - is the KEY to that sentence.

Also, "most Americans" does not include poor Americans when people like this use the phrase.

It certainly doesn't include those who have no cost for insurance now because they can't afford it and will continue to be unable to afford it even when the government offers them some meager tax credits "that's the subsidies we're talking about" to help.

When you say it provides no competition to insurance companies, its important people understand why that is.

There's language in the bill that gives big lip service to competition - talking about establishing state co-ops to "encourage non-profit" insurers to compete.

However, there's no public option to make the competition work, there's no assistance or incentive for the establishment of health insurance non-profit alternatives in the many states where there are none, there's no regulation to prevent national insurance from ignoring state rules and laws, and nothing to prevent them from driving under local competitors.

I could and probably should go on, but I'm tired and burned out... I'm tired of trying to get people to listen when the refuse to put policy above party.

[eridani]

17. In other words, costs that are already outrageously high will continue to climb

Just a little bit slower. FUCK THAT!