Insurance Companies on Road to Extinction. Call Their Bluff

[laughingliberal]

I have become convinced that the arguments against killing the bill are faulty and missing the big picture here. The underlying premise for needing to get this bill through is based on erroneous assumptions. These arguments presume if this bill is defeated we will see no attempts to reform health care again for many years. Of course, we think that. It's what happened before so we think we've seen this movie before and we think we know how it ends. There are key differences today that were not the case in 1993 and these differences are very powerful. The emotions and fear connected with the issue and some brilliant maneuvering by the insurance industry and our politicians have obscured the facts. Once we see the reality we will realize the insurance industry needs reform of the system even more than we need it. The push for reform will not go away with defeat of this bill.

The following is a discussion of why we will not see health care reform tabled for very long if we kill this bill. Health care is now a huge part of our economy and growing. This is draining every sector of the economy to some extent and is getting worse. Large sectors of the business community are now pushing for reform of the system. It is hurting industry's chance at competitiveness on the world market and they can not afford to let it go as it has been. Other industries are not going to sit idly by and let the insurance cartels claim an ever growing percentage of GDP while people are left with nothing to spend on their products or services. This is one reason the push for reform will not disappear if this bill is not passed. The business community will take up the cry even if the people do not.

But the biggest reason the push for reform will not die quietly away with the demise of this bill is that the insurance industry, for all their bluster, needs the system reformed. There are fewer people working and fewer of those who are working have employer sponsored benefits. They are losing large numbers of customers annually. They stand to lose vast numbers of customers over the next years as a huge part of this population turns 65 and escapes their grasp by becoming eligible for Medicare. The only way they are propping up their profits now is by charging higher premiums on those left in their clutches. Very soon they will have so few customers left the premiums they will need to charge to stay profitable will become unsustainable. There is a level at which they price themselves completely out of the market. They are approaching that level now. The number of people who can pay their prices is not high enough to sustain them now and it is shrinking rapidly as the wealth concentrates in fewer hands. The private for-profit insurance industry literally faces extinction if nothing is done. In other words, if we do nothing, this industry will die by attrition. This is the reason health care reform is being addressed now. It is the number one reason it is being addressed now. It is the reason the insurance industry 'graciously' consented to come to the table this time. The concern for the uninsured, the health of the nation, the impact to the economy are all secondary to the real reason the question of reform was allowed to come up at this precise point in time. The private, for-profit insurance companies are doomed if nothing is done in the very near future. After all, they can't move on to other countries and wave bye bye to us. The United States is, essentially, the only market they have. We have been looking at this backwards. We are not captive to them unless we allow it. They are captive to us. This bill is a bailout for this industry and they will not survive without it. I know they have made a good show of acting as if the status quo is what they want and pretending they do not want reform. It is a show for our benefit. They want reform. They need reform and they can not survive without reform. We hold all the cards. The only thing keeping us from getting good reform is we haven't figured that out, yet. Call their bluff. They will be back. We do not need them. They need us.

[Hannah Bell]

1. k/r

[Laelth]

2. Agreed. This bill is worse than doing nothing. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Kolesar]

3. "In other words, if we do nothing, this (insurance) industry will die by attrition. "

Sorry, don't agree

[laughingliberal]

8. Just because you don't agree does not meant it isn't true

Would be interested in hearing how they will sustain themselves without some sort of bailout. I'm not buying that their big show of coming to the table voluntarily was due to realizing the error of their ways.

[BeFree]

15. Ok

So say we let the insurance industry collapse.
What happens then? All the people who have paid into it for years then have no insurance?

[laughingliberal]

24. Guess we'd have that government takeover thingie going then

But it won't happen. A few lessons in poker strategy are in order here. They aren't going to sit back if this bill is defeated and wait while their market shrinks more every year. They have more to lose here than we do.

[clear eye]

48. Private insurance premiums don't accumulate like Soc. Sec.

You pay as you go, and as the OPer said, w/ the 1st wave of Baby Boomers aging out of the market, the premiums have been skyrocketing. Getting the parasitic private insurance industry off our backs and opening Medicare to everyone would be a great big wrapped in shiny paper w/ a bow on it gift to every man, woman and child in this country, and the best job stimulus plan that could be devised, as businesses would be freed of the cost of insurance and could compete fairly w/ industries abroad. The standardization of paperwork alone would save our whole healthcare infrastructure, and therefore the taxpayers, unfathomable amounts of money. And it won't happen.

If we get this bill, though, the subsidization of the poorly controlled premiums will be like an ongoing bank bailout all year, every year. Massachusetts, which tried a similar plan, was going under financially even before the economic crisis hit. The costs for this along w/ the wars and other ongoing corporate subsidies threaten both our currency w/ hyperinflation, and the existence of a middle class in this country as the taxes needed to finance it, and the services lost in desperate budget-cutting, ruin family after family.

We need to get Congress to behave in line w/ the reality that the wealth of the U.S. is large but not infinite. We at least need much better cost controls and an opening for a gov't program if it turns out we truly can no longer afford the amount private insurers need to skim off the top. The bill the Senate went in with, and is expected to become law is fiscal suicide for the whole country.

[BeFree]

61. Uhmmm

I know that. But people keep paying in and it means they 'believe' in the setup.
Personally, I don't. But I might if this bill goes thru!

Medicare is broke. Only with a huge tax on everyone will it ever not be broke.

So the congress is caught in this catch 22. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. And I'll be damned if I know what's gonna happen with this bill, but there seem to be a bunch of DEM congress people who do. So, I have to go with that and ignore most of these internet pleadings.

I understand if you have zero faith in our congress. I really do. But it is what it is and all we can do, until the people EVER decide to take back the country, is go with what's given us. Get ready, if yall are right, we'll have riots in the streets, finally.

[clear eye]

79. This isn't even the bill most of the Dem Congress wanted

The House bill had a public option, much better cost controls, and a fairer method of financing it. Rumor has it that even Harry Reid thought he could force Lieberman to get in line w/ the public option until Emmanuel told him to do otherwise.

And I don't trust Emmanuel. I don't know what his agenda is. His actions say that his bottomline is that there can be nothing in the bill that conceivably could be expanded into a gov't health program. He tells both the President and the Senate leadership that the private insurance co. bailout bill is the best they can get, when each of them are telling him that on their side they are willing to do something that protects the public better. Why should we accept him as the country's dictator?

Since the MSM is for the most part blacking out what the real power equation is, the public is getting its understanding from teabaggers and Fox News and will blame the out of control costs on gov't "socialism". If we get riots they are more likely to be in favor of some generals who say they will fix the corruption, or neocons who retake the gov't by running against the mandate.

Don't bloody count on a progressive revolution. When our country is in a state of unrest, our leaders will be arrested as "terrorists" before they can effectively get their message out to a large audience. The Congress who merely went along will be the fall guys. When the leftwing was blocked in Arab countries what emerged were totalitarian Islamic regimes. In the U.S. what the corporate masters will allow will be the dismantling of Congress and either a military gov't w/ a puppet President like in Pakistan, or civilian fascists masquerading as neocons. In about 8 - 10 years if the corporatists aren't prevented from bankrupting democracy, you can count on it.

In the meantime if I can see that a bill is a final blow to our economy, I'm going to oppose it. If I don't go w/ the public interest on this, what the heck do I stand for? Unless you call Rahm Emmanuel the Democratic Congress, they don't want it either.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Exactly Right....If the health insurance industry were not in trouble...

there would be no bill.

Indeed, "Sicko" was predominately about the insane, unbelievably cruel things insurance companies were and are still doing to try to save themselves. And even these practices would not have gained the attention of legislators if they didn't harm hospital corporations as well as patients.

What a country.

[bemildred]

5. Yep. there are "structural problems". nt

[Junkdrawer]

6. Remember when TARP was defeated in the House?

Industry rescue bills get resuscitated VERY quickly.

[laughingliberal]

9. Yep. I believe if we walked away with a "thanks for playing" attitude towards them

they would be the ones back at our door clamoring for relief. Really, how long can they really go on like this? They can continue to raise rates on the shrinking customer base they have but they are reaching the point that the more they raise the rates, the fewer customers they have.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Kick

:kick:

[LiberalAndProud]

10. The insurance industry is doing fine.

They are making higher profits on fewer policies. That is to say, they are keeping more of the earnings from selling less product. I know of no other industry where this is a money-making prospect, but that's what you get when you're not accountable to antitrust legislation.

You are saying that we are going to get a better bill next time because the insurance industry needs reform. Is that correct? Do you think the insurance industry will then push single-payer or universal Medicare in the next go-round? Do you think Nebraska is likely to get a more liberal pro-choice senator the next time around?

I will guarantee that if this bill is killed, (and it may yet be because Ben Nelson is encountering some terrible backwash here in Nebraska) that it will not be taken up again under Obama's tenure. That will leave the beginning of reform to 2013 at the very earliest. And many criticize this bill, among other reasons, because it doesn't take affect soon enough. Go figure.

[laughingliberal]

14. They appear to be doing fine but it is a house of cards

There is a point at which they will price themselves out of the market. No, the insurance industry will not push single payer or universal Medicare in the next go round but I guarantee you the choice of making more concessions or being left to die of attrition will make them a lot more reasonable. Hiding their likely future from us is the only way they have remained in the power position. And they are faced with extinction. It may take a while as they continue propping up their house of cards but, as you pointed out, a lot of the 'help,' in the bill doesn't start for a few years, anyway. I happen to think it won't take that long. I happen to think if it begins to look as if the bill is going to die we would see a little more back room dealing with more concessions out of them. It is a brilliant stroke that they have managed to get us begging them to let us reform their dying industry.

I am convinced the decreased wiggle room with the declining customer base added to the government's need to get costs under control will bring this issue back to the front burner quickly. Add in the strain the entire business community is experiencing as the result of this system and you see it is inevitable it will be back soon. As someone upthread pointed out, look how quickly TARP came back up after defeat in the House. This amoral industry did not come to the table voluntarily cause they realized the error of their ways.

[TransitJohn]

11. K&R, and a link to my New Year's Resolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7371820

[laughingliberal]

18. kicked and rec'd nt

[ipaint]

12. The industry is not doing just fine.

Private insurers lost an estimated 9 million customers between 2000 and 2007. In many cases, people lost coverage because they or their employers could no longer afford it as premium increases outpaced wage growth and inflation.
Recession job losses are adding to the toll. Some economists estimate that every percentage-point increase in the jobless rate adds 1 million people to the ranks of the uninsured.

The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors.
"The rate of aging far and away exceeds the birth rate," said Sheryl Skolnick, a CRT Capital Group healthcare investment analyst. "That's got to be very scary. . . . This is the biggest fight for survival managed care has ever faced, at least since they went bankrupt in the late '80s."

...In a recent letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), for example, Jerry Flanagan of the Santa Monica-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog wrote that adopting an individual mandate without a public alternative would amount to "a bailout for HMOs -- whose greed, waste and indifference to our health have created the current mess."
The industry fears that the government would force lower fees on hospitals and physicians, enabling a public health insurance plan to offer consumers a better bargain.
That, they say, would make it hard for private companies to compete for customers. Insurers also fear that a public option could easily be converted later into a single-payer healthcare system.
Health insurers don't see a public plan "as the nose of the camel under the tent; they see it as the front half of the camel under the tent," said Robert Laszewski, a former insurance company executive and industry consultant.

"They are interested in 45 million new customers," he said, "but the first thing in everybody's mind is preserving their right to do business in a way that can be profitable and meet shareholder needs."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7?pg=1

As soon as the mandate becomes law they will be doing just fine. Without a mandate, not so much, in fact shareholders would be up shit's creek. The free market would eat them up and spit them out unless they game the rules.

We are saving them.

[LiberalAndProud]

13. It seems to me that the industry is losing customers by design.

Clearly, we disagree. I am astonished that so many see mandates as a bailout for the industry, when it is clear that no reform will be successful unless it is, in fact, universal. (See Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards)

This bill will allow me to insure myself and my employees. But go ahead and kill it. I hate going to doctors anyhow.

[laughingliberal]

16. The mandates are absolutely a bailout for the industry

Sure, they kick the expensive patients out but that does not belie the fact that they are not attracting a new base of customers. Fewer employers can afford to cover employess. They definitely have fewer private customers. And they will lose huge numbers of people every year for the next 21 years as the baby boomers turn 65 in droves and escape to the safety of Medicare.

The bill would also allow me to have coverage I don't have, now. But my entire working life was as an RN and it's never been all about me. I'd rather take my chances now (and believe me at 54 with some health issues it is a sacrifice) to see this come back up and done better. The insurance industry is going to get more compliant as they face their inevitable demise. This bill really does allow them to continue increasing premiums at an unsustainable rate but it orders Americans to keep doling out the money to them under penalty of law.

[BeFree]

20. If no bailout, what then?

What if the Insurance companies go broke?
What happens to all those who have been paying insurance for years?

[laughingliberal]

22. Gasp! What if the insurance companies go broke?

I guess we'd just have to have one of those dreaded government takeovers of health care. They will not go broke is my point. They will be back ready to deal before that happens. They will be back before their shareholders get wise. The only way this industry can survive is if we bail them out. If we're going to save them, they need to give more. All the compromise has been from the consumers' side of the equation. That is because we have been duped into believing they are holding the better hand. They are not. Where will they go if we refuse to play, anymore. They have been in other countries trying to make inroads with their privatization crap. They have not gotten far. After the rest of the world has witnessed the destruction they have reaped on America, do you really see any emerging markets for these criminals?

[BeFree]

26. All over the place

First you say we are bailing them out, then you say they don't need to be bailed out, because if we did they'd be all honest and shit and tell the truth.

The truth will never be told because people don't want to hear the truth. It's what got Carter un-elected.

But, Obama has said that Medicare is about to go broke. Was he lying? Of course he lied, you will tell me. Not even you can accept the truth.

The insurance companies are going broke. Sure the execs are skimming the cream. Duh!! And what they are fighting against is the gov stopping the skim.

This process has been a slow motion train wreck. HCR is nothing more than speeding it up. You should be happy and help the wall be met sooner.

[laughingliberal]

29. Nope. Not what I've been saying

They will go broke if we don't bail them out. My point is they won't wait for that to happen. I don't expect them to tell the truth about it. I expect they will be back at the table willing to make more concessions. The current HCR reform will not stop the demise of their industry but it will slow it down. What do you think is in this bill to stop the skim? The MLR mandate? Wendall Potter has said the 85% that is mandated is the level at which they can most easily manipulate the numbers. It will give them millions of new customers who have to pay them and does not mandate they provide enough coverage to warrant it. If they don't get those millions they will fall faster. It will not happen because they will come back ready to deal again before they go broke.

Medicare is going broke. Diverting more money out of it into private industry is not going to change that. Stopping the $177 billion in subsidies to MA programs is good. But the balance of the cuts are not going to be made up by routing out waste, fraud, and abuse or by moving to 'best practices.' We need to go back to the table and get more concessions from the hospital industry. We need to stop raiding Medicare and SS funds for other priorities. We need to do a whole lot of things that this bill won't do.


edited spelling

[BeFree]

30. Lots of hot air

And no solutions, with out a good understanding of working within the system; and shows why we are so screwed. A lot of bitching and just objections to what is being attempted to correct the mess.

No, this HCR is not going to fix a broken and corrupt system. Duh!!
But you offer no fixes, except to say let it all collapse.

But you do recognize the hospital industry is at the core.
So, really, what can be done there? Eliminate profits? What?

[laughingliberal]

32. Wrong again

Much more than bitching and hot air. I laid out a substantive case for the fact that this industry we are begging to let us reform our health care system is bluffing. They are far more in need of this than they ever want us to know.

The fix I offer is make a credible threat to kill this and see how fast they want to revisit reform. If they come back with the position that further concessions will make it impossible for them to operate then our answer to them is, perhaps, we need to look at a system which does not include them. Watch how fast they figure out they can live with reasonable profit margins. They have no where to go. They have no other markets into which they can make inroads.

And, yes, I'm well aware of the role for-profit hospital corporations have played in the destruction of our health care system. I was working in hospitals as an RN during the takeover of the industry by for-profit corporations. I remember the scam they ran that competition would increase quality and reduce costs. It took some kind of illiteracy on the part of the American people to buy that crap. It is now more than exposed for the scam it was. Yet, we demanded nothing to speak of in the way of concessions from them. I would love to see a return to a non-profit hospital system where patient care actually was on the radar screen of priorities. That is probably unrealistic but I know they can live with a reasonable profit margin if they are presented with the choice of reasonable profits or no place in the system. Perhaps the words 'windfall profit tax' would get their attention. This is another industry which has no where to go. No other country is going to ever let them come in and steal from their citizens the way they have from us. We did just fine with a largely not for profit system before they came along.

These industries are involving us in high level game of chicken. Our fear and desperation has caused us to flinch first. Time to realize their vulnerabilities and exploit them. Good thing Democrats don't have to rely on their poker playing skills to survive. Until we recognize what power we do have and lose our fear of using it we will remain sitting ducks to the corporate juggernaut that is rolling over us.

[BeFree]

33. Power?

You think it is a wise use of power to let the system collapse? You never have answered the question of what will happen to the people who have been buying into health care by the billons$? Just chopped liver? Have they not shown that they "believe"?

Kill this and we are back to square one. A square that I never heard the Ins co. ever claim to be at, but you think they will claim now to be broke?

So, this HCR is somewhat successful following your reasoning. We got them right where we want them? Now all we do is walk away and they come begging for help? Bzzzzzzt.

I guess, at this point with all the BS, the best one can do is ignore the rantings of internet blowhards and have a modicum of faith that many, many Democratic Party congress people DO HAVE A CLUE and are working to fix some of the biggest faults. And that they will also get the buy-in of a great many rich people who can afford the insurance, and believe in private health insurance.

A sound political move.

Your idea is let it collapse and cross our fingers and hope for the best?
Sounds like more of the last 8 years of politics, to me.

I'll vote for the Dems, thank you very much.

[laughingliberal]

36. Misinterpreting what I said. Starting to look like a habit

I did not say we let the system collapse. I said we call their bluff. They will not let their system collapse and if they realize we would be willing to they will be much more cooperative. Remember, they do not think most of the pubilc realizes they are in this death spiral. And they are right about that. Most don't get it, yet. A few key legislators standing their ground and offering to let them keep their status quo they have managed to fool everyone into thinking they want will bring their real agenda out. They need HCR reform more than we do. Let them make the concessions to get it. People who have been buying in until now will then have another, better system into which they can buy.

No, I do not think they will claim to be broke. They don't want us to know they are in trouble but they will come back to revisit it and they will be more than willing to offer up a few more concessions.

No, we do not have them right where we want them with this bill. This bill props them back up for several generations. An industry spokesman recently said he got 95% of what he wanted in this bill. I don't think that qualifies as having them right where we want them. That qualifies as holding a straight flush and folding while the guys who had a straight took the pot. Bad poker strategy. Bad health care policy.

Sorry, I believe I can be excused for not trusting our Democratic Party people to have a clue. The people who fought for the right provisions in these bills got rolled by a corporate friendly administration with the help of Blue Cross Dogs in the Senate. Rich people who can afford the the insurance and believe in private insurance are already in the system. There are not enough out here they have yet to capture.to keep them propped up.

Again, no. My idea is not and has not been stated as letting it collapse. They are never going to sit by and let that happen. If we realize we hold some cards here they will deal. They know they are on the road to extinction and if we get off our knees and quit begging them to save us they will come back more reasonable.

One more time, just for good measure: I did not propose we let the system collapse. I propose we tell them they agree to some real reform with concession on their part or we will create a system without them. They will cave.

I vote for Democrats all the time. Once they are elected it is good to stay involved and demand they stand for Democratic principles. Like not letting the American people get rolled by a desperate, dying industry that has no where else to go. We need to remember a Democratic president signed NAFTA into law and it was to be 'fixed' later, too.

Maybe, just one more time. I did not say we let the system collapse. I said the system is collapsing and the industry is far more motivated to reform the system than most of the American people are. Call their bluff and get some real compromise from the industry.

[BeFree]

38. There is your disconnect

"...the system is collapsing and the industry is far more motivated to reform the system than most of the American people are."

The reason the reform is taking place, according to all the polls, is that people can't afford it and it is unaffordable.

The ins cos are raking in the dough!! They are not motivated to reform the system. And like an addict they deny any problems.

It is the people who are demanding reform and the Dem party has delivered!!

What you ARE suggesting is we let it go broke/collapse and they will admit their problems, lie down, roll over, and take reform.

Not a sound political theory, at all.

[laughingliberal]

40. Once again, I did not suggest we let the system go broke

I suggested the system is on the way to collapse and the insurance companies are far more motivated to reform the system than they are letting on.

Again, I did not suggest we let the system go broke. I suggested we call the insurance industry's bluff. They will be back asking us to reform their system. They are motivated to reform the system. The only denial going on is there pretense that they are against reform. Did you buy that whole, "the difference this time is they are not fighting reform?" Did you buy that heartwarming little charade of them coming to the table in good faith? Why would they do that if they are raking it in and see no end to their gravy train? They see the end and they came in with a plan to preempt the end and put a system in place which will guarantee their obscene profit levels for several more generations.

The reason reform is taking place at this precise point in time is because the industry now needs it. If people demanding reform would have accomplished it we would not still be waiting for reform.

If you call this bill the Dem party delivering I can hardly wait to see what else you are willing to settle for and call it progress.

Again, I did not suggest we let the system go broke. I said if we kill this bill or even if it looks like the move to kill the bill starts picking up steam, they will cave. Maybe not completely cave but we will get more concessions than we have.

Not sound political theory from the bunch who is already counting their campaign contributions. no. Very sound for the few who might still care about getting a good deal for the people of the country.

Did I mention that I did not suggest we let the system go broke? The system is going broke. What we need to do is ask those profiting off it what they are prepared to give up in order to stay in business.

[NashVegas]

86. Medical Providers Will Have to Review Their Business Model

Less boob jobs and other surgeries performed for physical enhancements as more people have to pay out of pocket for necessary procedures, for starters.

[ipaint]

31. By design?

Could you explain what you mean by that?

[LiberalAndProud]

35. It is simply more profitable.

Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/


Read that again. 428 Percent.

Name one other industry not related to the war machine that compares to these figures. All the while their profits were skyrocketing, more and more people fell off their rolls. The more at-risk people who aren't covered, the more money they make.

[laughingliberal]

37. Wonder why we never hear the words 'windfall profit tax' out of our elected officials anymore

I guarantee you their anal orifices would pucker like lemons at the thought.

I am convinced their push towards all of the obscene profits we have seen over the past decade has been a hedge against the coming exodus out of their system. I am certain if this bill is defeated the industry will be back demanding it be revisited very shortly.

[LiberalAndProud]

39. For the sake of argument, for argment's sake ...

because I doubt that I will change your mind, or that you will change mine ...

There is no law requiring that the insurance companies charge more for less every year. If it was in their best interests to place insurance within reach those in the 55+ age group, for instance, they would do so. It is not. If they want to retain customers, they would quit with the constant premium hikes. They aren't because they don't.

[laughingliberal]

41. Perhaps but you have to wonder, then, why the early Medicare buy in didn't have them jumping for joy

After all, either the White House or Joe Lieberman killed that proposal. I am certain it would have survived if the insurance companies had wanted it. And how 'bout that 'windfall profit tax' thingie? Wonder what that would do to the trajectory of the process?

[LiberalAndProud]

43. I don't know why Liebeman does anything.

Pehaps, as you say, his vote was purchased. It is, however, amazing to me that there is not one single Republican who's vote is for sale in the maelstrom. Perhaps I should switch parties, as they've proven to be resolute in their un-buy-off-ability.

[laughingliberal]

45. Well, he has pretty consistently stood up for the insurance companies

as has the White House as far as I can see. I was not really sure if I thought the Medicare buy in was a great idea or a fair idea or a terrible idea but the swiftness with which it was killed did confirm, in my mind, that some powerful forces were against it. Very confusing to my mind. We keep hearing how those over 50 are so much more expensive to cover. I am not convinced. The insurance companies use that as a justification to really jack the rates on over 50 customers but is it really necessary or just one more bullet in their arsenal? I am convinced they did not want to let the people 55 to 64 out of their clutches. It would hasten their demise. We are entering a period of 2 decades where scads of people would be escaping them by becoming eligible for Medicare and there are not scads of new customers to replace them. I am certain they saw it as a negative to let us out of their grasp 10 years early.

The Republicans oppose the HCR plan for 2 reasons. DeMint made it clear early on what the first reason is. They believe if they deny President Obama a win on HCR it will be his 'waterloo.' A second reason, seldom discussed, is that passing this corporate friendly bill will ensure the campaign donations to the Democrats. We have heard all along this is Rahm's priority, to capture the health care industry money for Democrats and deny Republicans that constituency.

[LiberalAndProud]

47. Or it could really be concern about deficits, like he said.

The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security's annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083. Medicare's financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

The fact of the matter is, as people age, they have a greater probability of requiring more expensive health care. As expensive life-prolonging measures are improved, the actuarial tables are tilted even further. We can, as the Republicans advocate, stick with the status quo. If you can't afford those measures, you aren't entitled to them. And they lecture us about health care rationing.


(Edit. I even stutter when I type)

[laughingliberal]

49. You coud be right but I have never seen Joe act so swiftly unless industry profits were at risk

The problems you cite in your post about the solvency of Medicare and SS are valid. I am very concerned we did nothing to fix Medicare with this bill except to yank $500 billion out of if. The $177 billion we take out of MA programs was an excellent step but the plans to save the balance of the $500 billion are unrealistic. Going after waste, fraud, and abuse is a movie we've seen before. They, largely, leave the industries most responsible for the waste, fraud, and abuse (for-profit hospital corps) alone and, once again, seek to cut funding to industries which have always been shown to save them money like home health and hospice. But the home health and hospice industries have little to spend on lobbying and campaign donations. So, they shoot themselves in the foot, again. Cut funding to these sectors for a short term savings which will result in missing the savings these industries bring to the system, costing more in the long run. Their efforts are, once again, window dressing that appears to be attempts to save money but do not go after the real waste in the system.

As for rationing, this bill we are working on accomplishes rationing in the masses not by dictating it but by requiring people to purchase policies which allow out of pocket expenses beyond their means. People will resist using the coverage they are made to purchase because the cost of using it is too high. It is disingenuous of the Republicans to oppose it. It is exactly the basis of Bush' ownership society crap. Require people to use more of their own money to pay for health care and they will be better stewards of the resources. Well, this does save money but does not allow people to be good stewards of their health. The insurance companies are not that interested in early detection. They count on detection being put off, in a lot of cases, until after people are no longer their problem (Medicare) or until they are too sick to treat and will, therefore, die quickly.

The status quo is not OK. But this bill does not really solve most of the problems we see with the status quo now. It solves the insurance industry's coming problem but not ours.

[LiberalAndProud]

55. The bill eliminates copays and deductible for preventative care.

Or so I have read.
http://www.mydd.com/users/deaniac83/posts/can-your-conscience-live-with-killing-the-bill

[laughingliberal]

56. True. The drawback here is once you get in to see your doctor without a copay,

how do you pay for treatment if they detect a problem? I'm without coverage now. I have, at times, had to go into an urgent care and pay privately (by the hardest) for some things like a dog bite that got infected. I knew it had to be treated. I knew treatment would clear up the problem. So, we scraped up the money for the visit and the antibiotics and got it taken care of. The difference here, though, is this. If I were to start noticing I was having episodes of chest pain and suspected I was developing coronary artery disease, I would not go see the doctor. Because, what if it is coronary artery disease? Can I afford to have bypass surgery? No. Why would I have a problem I can't afford to treat evaluated? Same situation I would be in if I had a policy which had out of pocket expenses I can not afford. And I know many people who are not covered or who are insufficiently covered operate this way. We have heard from many in the MA plan here who have policies they can not afford to use. They have the policy because they are mandated to buy it but it has provided them no more care. This is where the affordable argument about this bill breaks down. The policy may be affordable and a visit to the doctor may be affordable but treatment will still be out of reach of many.

[LiberalAndProud]

59. I am so taken by our similarity in circumstances

and our divergence in opinion. If my out-of-pocket medical expenses are capped at 10% of my income, isn't that better than the current state of no caps? Catastrophic illness or chronic disease is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy in our society today.

My husband and I are currently uninsured and have been for the last two years. My husband has a pre-existing condition that remains untreated. In the end, it will result in blindness. It will unless something happens externally to change our circumstances. It will. And I know that we are not singularily to benefit, there are many others. Millions of others. Yourself included, as you have stated.

[laughingliberal]

64. I really want to see people helped with HCR

I get so sad when I hear stories like that of your husband. I have seen more than I ever wanted to in 25 years of nursing in this hideous health care system we have here. My husband and I are already bankrupt and beyond. The collapse of the housing market destroyed his business. I lost my job and the premium for our COBRA was $1200 per month. We had to pay it cause he was diagnosed with prostate cancer just before I was unemployed. We scraped up every penny we could find, pulled every credit line we still had left, and pulled out my 401k to keep it paid til he could complete his treatments. We lost everything and are desperately poor, now. The problem we had would not be solved by those who are at the income level we were at who had premiums of that amount. We would have fallen outside qualification for the subsidy but would not have had enough money to pay $1200 a month let alone the out of pocket expenses. We would have fallen into the group who could qualify for a hardship waiver but those people will still not have coverage. They will not be fined for not obtaining coverage but that still won't get them any healthcare.

I know there are people without help now who will get some help from this. And I don't want to deny them that. I just hate to see us go down the path of exacerbating the current problems. We are not going to see health care costs go down. Medicare is still on the path to go broke and they are not enacting policies which will help that much. This bill will help some in the short term but I am convinced we will be back here facing the same problems within a few years of the bill taking effect. I believe, at that point, we will see the real push for privatization of Medicare. And we will see a lot of destruction of income in the working and middle classes. I despair of getting anything better due to the political climate in which we currently live. We really have devolved into a 2 party system-1 corporate friendly, right wing party and the other off the charts crazy right wing. I do wish you and others who will be helped the best. I just wish we had someone who could stand up to the blood suckers and demand more concessions from them before we turn our most vulnerable over to them.

[LiberalAndProud]

66. Damnit. Damnit. Damnit.

You just made me cry. I share your despair. Do I EVER know what you mean about wishing someone would stand up to the bloodsuckers. In the end, it will be us, you know. I see this legislation as less a solution, than a platform from which you and I can stand and be heard.

If this bill does not pass, I hope that it is for the best, as you seem to have decided. But I will despair of progress in my lifetime. Honestly, I just want to fix this mess, you know? But Ben Nelson is my representative. His support for even this is tentative. There is a phenomenal amount of pressure on him to oppose from his constituents here. It irks me when I think that, for as bad as he is, he is representing the majority of the people in my state.

So, I am on a mission to change minds and hearts about government's role in health care. It is less difficult to help people see the need for change than to get the opportunity to have the conversation. If I work on that for the next 16 years, maybe we'll have a better shot next time.

But it is enough, for now, that I count you among my DU friends. Wishing you peace and prosperity and much-improved circumstances in this brand new year.

[laughingliberal]

68. I get it. I have never spent more time crying than I have since this debate began

I spent most of my adult life trying to vote in people who could change this and fighting with health care administrators to make patient care a priority in their institutions. I've fought insurance companies for hours on end to make them pay for treatments my patients. And, when we took back the White House and gained overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, I really believed we would get there, finally.

I feel for you with Nelson as your Senator. I have Harry Reid. Not much better but I do believe he did everything in his power to get a public option if not a strong public option. I am not necessarily advocating for the defeat of the bill. What I really would like to see is the threat of that levied against the industry. I am convinced if they thought there was a real possibility of a challenge to the bill from the left they would offer up a few more concessions. But the point is moot. The left has been placed in an untenable position. Vote for a bill that really stinks or risk bringing down a president of their own party. I fully expect they will vote for it.

It is breathtaking the to see the absolute unyielding hatred that President Obama's CofS has for the left. I am convinced we, at one time, had the votes to get, at least, a weak sliver of a public option passed in the Senate. I know enough about Harry Reid to know he would not have included it in the blended bill he wrote if he did not think he had the votes for it. And I am convinced that Rahm Emanuel killed it purposely and maliciously just to prove he could. He wants those industry donations in the hands of Democrats and a hateful HCR bill bothers him not in the least. I believe he is a sociopath of the first order. What is more confusing, though, is a president whose own mother spent the last days of her life in fear of an insurance company that was threatening to cut off her access to treatment going along with this. That baffles me to no end. And it scares me to think what kind of forces he must be up against to so totally betray what I still think are his true beliefs and feelings about this matter.

I appreciate you counting me as a DU friend and feel the same. God knows, I need all the friends I can get these days. I will keep you and yours in my thoughts and prayers and wish we all see better days ahead. (not sure I believe in God but I do pray just in case, lol)

Peace

[LiberalAndProud]

76. Why do you have that opinion of Rahm?

What makes you think he has been working against our liberal values? I ask this in sincerity. I understand that he did recruit our current Blue Dogs. Although I don't like them much, (see Ben Nelson) I like them better than the opposition (see Mike Johanns).

Is it because he didn't agree with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy? Well screw him, but isn't that is just a strategic error on his part?

Or is there something more to it than that? I promise I will read any material you think would enlighten me on this, so take it easy on me, okay?

And don't get me started on the God thing. Let me just say we are also united in our agnostic stance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Just this afternoon, one of my relatives (a retired schoolteacher with excellent benefits)

chided me for not having had a bone scan.

Well, I have a huge deductible, and my insurance premiums are high enough to prevent me from affording a bone scan.

Lovely, isn't it?

[LiberalAndProud]

73. If you could use the insurance premium dollars for health care,

could you afford the bone scan? That's the reason I dropped insurance altogether. I decided I'd be better off using the dollars I have to buy health care instead of health insurance. But now I'm left open to devastating consequences in case of catastrophic accident or illness. Will this legislation help? I don't know. What I do know is that doing nothing definitely won't.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. I'm getting to that point

The only thing that worries me is that if they do make health insurance mandatory, what I have now, bad as it is, is better than what they're proposing for my age group and income.

As I've said before, I could always go live in Mexico or something.

[ipaint]

46. Either way.

Loss of 170 billion customers or pricing the majority out of the marketplace, both are unsustainable in the near future.

Of course mandates both increase customers and like lambs to slaughter, rates can be raised on a lot more newly mandated captives.

Not to mention it lays in the infrastructure for the privatization of medicare. The insurance companies have no intention of losing 170 million baby boomers.


We are saving them.

[LiberalAndProud]

50. Okay. I'll concede the point.

Now, please show me the path to better legislation. Please show me the path. I will walk shoulder-to-shoulder with you as we walk it. We cannot tolerate the status quo any longer. 2014 is too late, but it is a finite time. Tell me that you will have something better by 2016. Make it so. I'll help.

[ipaint]

54. No mandate.

or kill it. If we can't regulate the industry without a mandate we aren't going to all of a sudden start regulating with one. Why regulate, people are forced to buy. And if we can't regulate we haven't reformed a thing.
The industry used to operate just fine without a mandate or rescission or pre-existing denials until they got greedy.

Not one country with a universal type system chose to go this way. It will fail. In a rather short time frame mostly depending on how long it takes for the industry loopholes buried in this bill and the consequences to the poor, working and middle classes are exposed.

We better hope it isn't a repub that decides to campaign on getting rid of the mandate. Party isn't going to matter to a lot of people once they understand the consequences of being forced to buy a substandard product from a greedy industry.

The insurance industry will not allow itself to be regulated. And the proof will be in the lack of a public plan for citizens in the final bill.

I'm uninsured ten years. I refuse to advocate for the continued abuse of any further generations under the thumb of the ins. industry.

[laughingliberal]

58. A path to better legislation, tough question

But as we have seen it will be near impossible to get to a non-profit, single payer system without a huge public outcry, I would advocate, reluctantly, for a more incremental approach. Those urging us to support this bill are saying we need to accept incrementalism. I can accept incremental change if it goes the right direction. Some things we could do incrementally which would put us on the right path are:

Take away the antitrust exemption for the industry
Establish the CHC's already provided for in this bill
Fund the expansion of Medicaid included in the bill
Provide a framework and seed money for states who choose to adopt single payer systems
Look for real savings in Medicare, not the ones who protect the powerful lobbies in the system like the for profit hospital corporations
Creation of an exchange which small businesses and self employed could buy into to cover their families and their employees. This idea has been out there for years and it is odd no one ever proceeded to get it done.
Put real cost controls in place. Regulate the MLR. Give the insurance companies a couple of years to see how they do with that before we turn our citizenry over to them with a mandate.

I would even go with this bill with some changes. Go with the House version of funding and ditch the working class destroying 'cadillac plan' tax.
Use the House' model of community rating
Absolutely get that provision that allows employers to pass more costs on to employees who don't meet certain goals. In fact, reverse that executive order Bush signed that allows your employer access to your PHI (this is a serious hit to privacy rights and has, largely, flown under the radar).

I am looking at things within this bill that can lower the costs to consumers and protect them more. In its current form, the Senate bill is 30 million lambs to the slaughter and the seeds of the final destruction of the American working and middle classes.

[LiberalAndProud]

60. Yes, you have pointed out those things that I like about this bill as well.

And I'm a realist in the sense that I know, in one way or another, that I will end up paying something (a lot) for access to health care, as opposed to paying nothing today. I would like nothing better than to take the profit motive out of it for both insurance companies and healthcare providers. But we live here in the USA and even if we can kick the insurance industry out, there is still the for-profit health care industry to contend with.

The truth is, when we were young and healthy, health care insurance was do-able (one can argue the affordable part). We paid group health insurance premiums for 15 years. The argument that you have against mandated insurance -- failing to receive preventative care because of inability to pay the co-pay -- I don't do the annual checkup thing. In those 15 years, I received exactly $0.00 benefit. I didn't see a doctor once in all those years. Now, conveniently for the insurance companies when the cost of that neglect is most likely to come due and payable, premiums are no longer do-able. So I'm left to pay 100% of the bill out of my own pocket. That is why the model in effect today is so very lucrative for the insurance industry. And why I am willing to take this deeply flawed bill as a starting point.

[laughingliberal]

17. Very well explained. Thank you

Isn't it interesting that a former executive of the industry sees what we see. Wendall Potter also has called it the Insurance Profit Protection Act. I say we call their bluff. I believe just a credible threat that the bill may die will see them back at the table offering up a little more in the way of concessions.

[leftstreet]

27. +1

Yep, we're saving them.

[amborin]

19. and speaking of "policing" the health insurers: look at this mess:

WASHINGTON–In her first public address after taking office, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis promised to increase enforcement of laws designed to protect workers.

"You can rest assured that there is a new sheriff in town," she told union members at a gathering in Miami Beach shortly after her confirmation in February.

Ten months later, Solis’ Labor Department has failed to crack down on one of the agency’s fastest growing and most expensive programs—a system designed to ensure medical care for civilian workers injured in war zones.

The department is responsible for overseeing a workers compensation system in which insurance carriers provide coverage to civilians working on overseas federal contracts. Such policies are funded by taxpayers.

But the department has failed to pursue sanctions against corporations accused of ignoring federal requirements to purchase such insurance, according to a ProPublica review of court cases, federal records and interviews with worker advocates.

The department has also taken no action in cases where insurance carriers allegedly provided false or misleading information to the federal government to terminate medical benefits for injured civilians—another potential crime under the law, known as the Defense Base Act.....

snip

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/labor-depts-botched-oversight-injured-war-contractors

[laughingliberal]

21. Yes, I was reading through the portions of the Senate bill this morning that concern

oversight and enforcement. Not very encouraging. An administration that gave the health insurance industry everything they wanted is going to decide whether the industry's premium increases are appropriate? Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

[amborin]

23. more here:

"Anthem BC/WellPoint is currently suing Maine to force an average rate increase of 18 percent (the 10.9 percent average increase approved by the state was not enough for Anthem).

If WellPoint wins the lawsuit, some plans would see increases of 24.5, 38.4, and 58.2 percent. Individual policies in Maine are four times as much as ten years ago. Insurers are providing fewer benefits and continue to deny more claims.

Maine voters want a public option 58 to 29 percent. What kind of rate increases will private insurers force on consumers when the health care debate is over if they have the audacity to do this now? “WellPoint sued an entire state to increase profits” "

http://bravenewfilms.org...

[laughingliberal]

25. We are seeing the beginning of the death knell of this industry

They are absolutely unable to sustain themselves with the shrinking customer base without these kinds of huge increases. They're in a downward spiral. Huge premium increases prop their profits up a little. But then the increase results in fewer customers able to afford their product which requires another increase to make up the lost revenue from lost customers which results in more people defecting and so on....

Just how long do people think it will be before that house collapses in on itself. Starve this beast. Threaten to deny them their infusion of new victims. They will be back initiating the call for reform.

[LiberalAndProud]

44. Let me understand this ...

Government does not police the insurance industry well, but we WANT universal (government-issued) health insurance? You are making the argument for the other side of the health care issue. Thanks.

[clear eye]

51. If you are willing to listen w/ an open mind, I'll explain why liberals know this makes sense.

Otherwise, please don't read the rest of this comment. I'll just post it for others who are puzzled by the seeming contradiction.

The reason that gov't doesn't police the private insurers well is not that gov't can't get good experts to do the job properly. What caused them to write a bad bill, and what causes gov't regulatory failure of many large, powerful industries is that their money warps the system. They have both a carrot and a stick to create overwhelming pressure for Congress to write the rules to favor them and hurt the public (taxpayers). They can give to members' campaigns through PACs, etc., or threaten to support a challenger instead.

When the gov't is running one of its own programs, preferably w/ its own administrators, there is no one to push them to do it wrong. The proof of this is Medicare, which spends under 4% of its budget for administration, while private insurers spend over 30%. The same economies hold true for gov't nat'l health plans in other countries.

[laughingliberal]

53. Thanks. Very clear, clear eye. nt

[LiberalAndProud]

57. Look, I agree that Medicare is administered well.

Now tell me why it is going broke. Right, because it is not funded. So the only way to make it work is to raise taxes. Now let's see if we can get that bill passed as the new election year greets the world.

I understand that money buys influence. Who in modern day society doesn't? But good "lord, let's do nothing because it's all bought and paid for" just sounds like defeatism to me.

Let's say this is a totally rancid bill. At least I have some recourse in the courts due to the mandate. I can see an age discrimination lawsuit in the offing, for example.

And please, because we disagree does not make me less liberal than you, okay?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Aren't Medicare's problems partly due to the fact that it covers only the elderly,

who naturally have more medical problems than other people?

What if it covered everyone? People would pay into it for years but not really use it much till they got older.

[LiberalAndProud]

77. That would be the solution.

But we can't expand Medicare unless we also increase payroll taxes. That, if you recall, was taken off the table before Obama was elected. I had no illusions about what he was going to offer in terms of health care reform. It was clear in his campaign. He told us that we weren't going to get expanded Medicare when he told us he wouldn't be raising taxes on the middle class. He told us that the solution would be built around our current insurance structures.

I often tell my grandchildren, "You aren't going to get what you want. Now you have two choices A or B. Pick one." That is what we are left with, two choices, pass this legislation or kill it. One will be better than the other. Which one offers a better future? Really, isn't that the crux of our disagreement?

[clear eye]

80. Did you even read the OP? The main point of it was

that if this bill is killed by Congress members from the left, all sides, including the insurance industry, will be determined to create something that will pass the progressives. You claim she said the opposite. But you only see your preconceptions.

You actually created an imaginary quote from me ("lord, let's do nothing because it's all bought and paid for") that is opposite of what I said, too. DON'T PUT WORDS IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS IF YOU WANT ANYTHING BUT A BUNCH OF "IGNORES".

And saying Medicare is broke is like saying the Food Stamp program is broke, or the unemployment benefit program is broke. It's not supposed to pay for itself, and the taxes collected for it went to pay for the Iraq war. It's a social safety net program, and it was created b/c it's the least expensive way of taking care of the medical needs of old people who can no longer work. Putting private insurance cos. further into the mix only makes it more expensive, meaning more taxes. The only way to avoid paying taxes for Medicare and food stamps would be to let old sick people die and let poor people starve on the streets. You've been watching too much Fox News.

If you were a liberal, you'd understand.

[LiberalAndProud]

81. Yes, I did read the op.

I don't agree with the underlying premise, that if we kill this we will get something better. That's what this discussion is about.

I didn't intend to put words in your mouth, but to convey what I believe the options truly are. My sentence didn't make sense without quotes. I suppose I could have used a dashes or elipses, but I didn't realize that the quote marks would cause offense.

We could have a discussion about why Medicare is broke. We can talk about people over the age of 65 who need dialysis treatment three times every week in order to stay alive. We can talk about prescription medications to control heart rate, treatments to cure, or at least slow the advance of prostate cancer and a myriad of other health issues that are almost uniquely problems encountered in later years. These are expensive and long-term life extending measures. New treatments become available almost every day. The cost of late life care is not going to decline. Of course insurance companies don't want to assume that risk. The government took senior health care on after the banks had already robbed the senior population blind. At that time two new payroll taxes were born (SSI and Medicare). FDR and his fellow Democrats did not expect to endlessly print money to fund the iniatives.

The next time you get a paycheck, you might want to look at your payroll deductions. There is one called Medicare. It amounts to 1.45% of your gross wages. That amount is matched by your employer. We are supposed to be paying for our parents' care. Our children are supposed to pay for our care. Yes, it was designed to pay for itself. It was never expected to be funded from the general fund.

I hope I haven't offended you again. I am really trying to have an honest and civil discussion without engaging in personal attacks or letting emotions hijack the debate.

If you would rather not, that's okay too. Peace.

[clear eye]

82. One doesn't open an attempt to "have a civil discussion" by

falsifying the position of the other party.

If civil discussions are what you truly want, you'll have much better results w/ intellectual honesty.

[LiberalAndProud]

83. Is it that you would rather be offended?

I could help you out if you'd like. As I stated, I read the OP, and I disagree with the premise. Have you read my other discussions in this thread? If not, I would ask you to, and if you'd still like to come and finish a fight that you believe I started, please do. Otherwise, don't waste our collective time.

I would rather that you read what I have written in this thread before you put me on ignore, so that you can understand that our points of agreement are not so few as you would like to believe. But if you just want to pick a fight, put me on ignore now, okay?

[laughingliberal]

52. The enforcement efforts in this bill are non-existent for the most part

Determining the validity of the requests for premium increases is left up to the director of HHS. Currently the director of HHS is part of an administration which has shown itself to be a little too friendly to industry for my comfort. And there is no guarantee will see less friendly administrations in the future. Especially if Republicans regain the executive branch at some point. Having people who rely on industry's campaign contributions in charge of policing the industry is nuts.

And, yes, government issued health insurance or non profit models do not have the money to buy our government.

[LiberalAndProud]

63. And so we are stuck.

Thank you, laughingliberal. I have so much appreciated this exchange. Although we haven't managed to change each other's minds, it has been a civil, issue-oriented debate. I really do appreciate that.

:toast:

Happy new year. Let us hope that whatever comes of this, we take the right decisions now to leave behind a better tomorrow.

[leftstreet]

28. K&R

[2 Much Tribulation]

34. Fresh and true insight here in the OP, insurance is bleeding customers by millions n/t

[deaniac21]

42. and with this bill they get a TON of new customers who are

forced to buy. At the end of this year we will not have 60 votes in the Senate.

[ipaint]

62. Health Care Bill “Is Just Another Bailout Of The Financial System”

Economist Says Health Care Bill “Is Just Another Bailout Of The Financial System”

It is obvious that many republicans oppose the proposed health care bill. But many liberals and progressives oppose it as well.

For example, economist L. Randall Wray writes:

Here’s the opportunity, Wall Street’s newest and bestest gamble: there is a huge untapped market of some 50 million people who are not paying insurance premiums—and the number grows every year because employers drop coverage and people can’t afford premiums. Solution? Health insurance “reform” that requires everyone to turn over their pay to Wall Street. Can’t afford the premiums? That is OK—Uncle Sam will kick in a few hundred billion to help out the insurers. Of course, do not expect more health care or better health outcomes because that has nothing to do with “reform” … Wall Street’s insurers… see a missed opportunity. They’ll collect the extra premiums and deny the claims. This is just another bailout of the financial system, because the tens of trillions of dollars already committed are not nearly enough.

Wray points out that – with the repeal of Glass Steagall – the financial sector and the insurance businesses (the “f” and “i” in the “fire” sector) are somewhat merged.

Wray is no conservative. He is Ph.D. is Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Research Director with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability and Senior Research Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute – which focuses on inequality in the distribution of earnings, income, and wealth.

cont.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/guest-post-economist-says-health-care-bill-is-just-another-bailout-of-the-financial-system.html

[laughingliberal]

69. Good post

I know a lot of us have been saying this is bailout of the health insurance industry but I wonder how many know this is, literally, true. I wonder how many are aware that the health insurance industry will implode without something like this. Interesting that Glass Steagall was mentioned because I remarked to my husband just last night that Glass Steagall not only had the firewall between investment and commercial banking but also forbade banks from becoming involved in the insurance business.

The insurance industry is unique in that, as I've already stated, they have nowhere else to go. There is no other market in the world for their product except the American public. I wonder if the public realized this if we would see enough public outcry for some concessions on the part of the industry? I don't even think it would be necessary to kill the bill. I think any credible threat to do so from the left would see them become more compliant. I don't expect we have any who are brave enough to mount this type of challenge so it is probably moot. Perhaps educating people will do nothing to help us now. But trying to get the message to the public about the precipice upon which this industry now stands may change the debate when we revisit this in a few years. And we will have to revisit it. The patch we are putting on this now will not last long. Costs will continue to rise. Soon, they will have tapped all the money there is to tap under this new system and they will be back. Their next demand will be privatization of Medicare. They won't be able to resist recapturing those who have managed to escape them. Never mind all their show of not wanting those older, sicker people. They will want Medicare turned over to them and they will want us to pay them for taking it over.

If sounding the alarm and educating the public will not change what is about to happen, it may, at least prepare people for the next foray into this area and, perhaps, some will then stand up and call their bluff.

[ipaint]

75. Goldman Sachs is getting into the health ins. business this month.

As soon as the bill is signed.

They announced their intentions last July. Think they were not confident the so called reform bill would go through as planned.

All these moves are completely transparent it's just that people refuse to add it all up.

[varelse]

65. You are absolutely right

The health insurance industry does not want reform; they do want forced participation because without it, the industry will collapse.

[Faryn Balyncd]

67. K&R......The push for reform cannot go away because out of control cost are strangling Americans &..

....American industry.



Thanks for post.

[maryf]

70. People over profit, K&R nt.

[KakistocracyHater]

78. we are the last market for the insurance co.s

*

[JoeyT]

84. What would help

would be to pass the parts of the health insurance reform bill that are actually good.
No preexisting conditions, no cancelling policies because you're being forced to pay, and no more monopolies.
They wouldn't make it to March.

[chimpymustgo]

85. "The people" have much more power than the politicians want us to know.

[LooseWilly]

87. The "urgent need of reform" will only become more urgent. I agree... call the bluff.

Who says only the right should be placated/"paid off" in this process?