Since Many Here Like To Spread Falsehoods About the HCR Bill, The IMMEDIATE BENEFITS

[berni_mccoy]

Summary from: http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=321145

The House Bill has more immediate impact, but I thought I'd post the minimum of what the least of the bills would do in the first year, that is, if the single-payer-or-die folks aren't successful in joining forces with the teabaggers in killing the bill.

With the first year of enactment of this legislation, this bill fixes our broken health system by:

· Providing affordable coverage to the uninsured with pre-existing conditions
· Improving care to seniors
· Lowering prescription drug costs
· Reducing costs for small businesses through tax credits on premiums
· Extending coverage for young adults
· Providing preventative care free of charge
· Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of salary, gender or existing illness
· Eliminating lifetime limits on the amount of coverage a person may receive
· Making health insurance plans more transparent and competitive

Over the past few days, some DUers have posted that the bill does not have any immediate impact. This is simply false, and no one here should believe it. It is right-wing, anti-health care reform talking point.

[liberal N proud]

1. K&R

[NJmaverick]

2. There are millions of people that would be helped by passage of this bill

how can anyone ignore those people in favor of some sort of personal agenda?

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Thanks for this incredible post.

Congress and the Senate are close to passing the most progressive Bill that the U.S. has seen since Johnson was President. Yes, it could really be a lot better, but as a progressive my goal is to fight for progress that helps people and improves lives. This bill will do that, even in the first year.

[zipplewrath]

10. Not sure why you say that

Look at what the bill ACTUALLY does, not just what the proponents say. It doesn't particularly control costs, or ensure access to health care. A much better title would be the "health insurance industry stimulus package" because the most predominate effect is to ensure alot of new customers for the health insurance industry without demanding much from them at all.

[CreekDog]

11. better to make the most vulnerable in our society wait

because waiting will get us a better bill, just like waiting made this bill better.

:sarcasm:

[Ozymanithrax]

16. 45,000 people die a year because they have no health care.

More than 48 million people have not health care.

Most of the bankruptcies in any give year are caused by people wh o can't pay for healthcare.

Should we let them die and suffer because the bill isn't what we want.

I will take the side of those who need help now, not tell them Republian mantra that is to shut up an die until congress gets its shit together.

[zipplewrath]

20. You presume alot

Do you have any evidence that this bill will change much of those health CARE issues?

People with insurance suffer bankrupties because of health problems. Nothing in this bill is designed to prevent that, only make sure that they have to keep paying their premiums while they go bankrupt.

People will be forced to get health insurance, but there is nothing in this bill to ensure they have the ability to use that insurance to get health CARE.

Don't just run around here spouting White House Talking Point. If you actually dig into the senate bill, it isn't clear that this bill will address significant numbers of people.

[CreekDog]

24. wait for a better bill, after all, waiting made this bill better

didn't it? :wtf:

[zipplewrath]

27. Doing nothing is better than doing nothing

That's basically your argument here. We've waited 16 years for this opportunity, and now that it's been squandered by the White House, it's better to pass this do nothing bill that to do nothing.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[zipplewrath]

54. Yes, they did

Especially in the out years. But there won't be any out years for this bill. It just rearranges the everyones positions, but does basically nothing for health CARE costs. The reason health INSURANCE is expensive is because health CARE is expensive, and the health insurance companies only have so much interest in reducing the costs of health care because the current model is very profitable for them. This bill doesn't change that basic problem. It also doesn't ensure that ANYONE will be able to pay for the CARE, just that they will be FORCED to pay for INSURANCE.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. The list of positive changes in the bill above is a beginning.

Health Insurance companies have spent more than 300 million dollars to stop Health Care Legislation.

Republicans continue to fight against this Health Care Legislation and are already planning on making repealing the legislation the centerpiece of their strategy in November.

I will not side with Health Care Companies. I will not stand arm and arm with Republicans.

I will fight to bring any help we can bring to the 45,000 people a year who die simply because they have no health care. I will fight to bring any help I can to 48+ million people who have no health care.

I can afford health Insurance for myself and my family. I help my sister pay for hers, because she can not afford it and doesn't work with a company that does. I have older children who, like my sister, can not afford health care. My choice, the only choice my conscience allows me to make, is to help my family and people I know get access to health care. The nebulous fear that some big bad health care company might make a little money, or the idea that a person who is young and doesn't want to spend some money are just not considerations in my decision.

I respect you for the stand you take. A single payer system such as Medicare for all should be enacted. But I am realist enough to know that, at this time, it will not. Giving people a little help and improving their lives is better than telling them Republicans and Health Care companies are right.

[zipplewrath]

34. This isn't about single payer

Quite outside of that issue, this bill isn't assured of doing anything close to what you are implying. Predomintately what it does is to force people to buy insurance without any assurance that they will be able to afford to use it. It ensures that the insurance companies maintain their profits and does little to control the rise of health care costs. It is rearranging the chairs of the deck of the Titanic.

[Ozymanithrax]

40. Then you think the Insurance companies, Republicans, and Tea-baggers are right?

Health Care companies should spend more than the 300 million they've already spent to defeat it?
Republicans should champion your cause and defeat the bill or repeal it?

Me, I still stand by the 45,000 people who die each year because they do not have access to health care.

I stand with the 48+ million people who have no health care. (The people waiting in line for a coffin.)

This bill will help millions of people. That is progress. I am a progressive.

[zipplewrath]

45. No

You keep making assertions you can't support. You're just spewing White House Talking Points.

The tea baggers don't even address the specifics of this bill.

The GOP doesn't dispute the substance, and supports the basic talking points.

The Insurance companies just don't like federal level regulation, regardless of what it does.

I'm here making specific points about the specific bill and explaining that it doesn't really do everything the White House wants you to think it does. They are campaigning, just like they did a couple of years ago. That's when Obama talked favorably about single payer. It's when he complained about the Cadillac Tax. You can't trust this White House to be honest about the short comings of this bill. You'll have to dig them out yourself.

This bill does little if anything to address health care COSTS. It does little to ensure that people, even folks that are currently insured, will be able to afford the health CARE they need.

[dflprincess]

42. And it was money well spent for them as we're not getting a health care bill

we're getting the Health Insurance Company Profit Protection Act. Nothing in either the House or Senate bill guarantees access to care and they both allow annual out of pockets ("cost-sharing") maximums that will keep a lot of people from seeking care when they need it. We never hear an estimate of the number of insured who die because they still could not afford care.

It may cut the number of uninsured (though the CBO says by 2017 19 million will still not have "coverage") but the ranks of the under-insured will continue to grow and people will still be declaring bankruptcy because of medical bills.

This is nothing but another bail out for a corrupt industry that should be allowed to collapse.

[Ozymanithrax]

66. Only if the health care bill doesn't pass.

But they will continue to fund the Republican's attempt to repeal the bill.

[zipplewrath]

82. There is no Health Care Bill

Only the Health Insurance Industry Stimulus Bill of 2010.

[laughingliberal]

74. +1000 nt

[kath]

89. +1000 more!

[laughingliberal]

69. "health insurance industry stimulus package"

Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act of 2010.

[kath]

88. But when is "the first year"?? 2013, like in all the bullshit bills talked about last summer????

[berni_mccoy]

125. Jesus people. It's 2010, ffs! Many of the 1st year benefits would have already kicked in by now.

[girl gone mad]

145. It's wonderful and amazing..

if you're really into empty talking points.

[VMI Dem]

4. What are the centrist defintions of affordable, lowering and reducing?

[kath]

134. This is KEY, people -- what they call "affordable" and what working people on THIS planet call

affordable are miles apart.

[laughingliberal]

183. No one pays attention to that

They ignore that we live in a place where the government defines poverty as an individual who makes less than $10,830 per year (that's $902.50 per month). I'm pretty sure there are people making more than that who are fairly poor. This is a starting point for figuring out what the government considers affordable.

[dkf]

5. Hey so you CAN get all this done without a mandate

I rest my case.

[abluelady]

6. Thanks for Letting Us Know.

What I haven't heard, though, which I'm curious about is without a public option, what are the costs going to be to the buyer of insurance, with all these changes. Believe me, I am looking forward to being able to buy a policy with a pre-existing condition, but will I be able to afford it. Let's face it, profit hasn't been taken out of health care.

[cliffordu]

7. K*&R

[zipplewrath]

8. Lotta lipstick on this pig

· Providing affordable coverage to the uninsured with pre-existing conditions

That's a mouthful of claim with little to support it. It would provide insurance to a certain class of lower income level Americans with pre-existing conditions. This is not, by far, ALL people with pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, no definition yet exists of "affordable". And the only part which is defined to be affordable at all is the health insurance PREMIUM. Nothing in this bill ensures that the individuals will actually be able to afford to access health CARE. I know folks right now who have health insurance and can't afford to use it.

· Improving care to seniors
· Lowering prescription drug costs

No, what this does is to get rid of the "donut hole". There are little if any real cost controls on pharmaceuticals and in fact there is a specific RESTRICTION on medicare negotiating drug prices.

· Reducing costs for small businesses through tax credits on premiums
· Extending coverage for young adults
· Providing preventative care free of charge

You'll have to flesh this one out too. Because my current policy has that already and you'd be amazed at what is not considered "preventative medicine".

· Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of salary, gender or existing illness
· Eliminating lifetime limits on the amount of coverage a person may receive
· Making health insurance plans more transparent and competitive

And I'm not sure which one of these to point out this little tid bit but the insurance companies are specifically allowed to charge folks with pre-existing conditions much more, upwards of 300% more. Furthermore, you can be "turned down or cancel" if it was determined you committed an act of "fraud". Ya know what that includes? If you didn't understand, or forgot, some condition or illness that you suffered in your past, including your childhood, even if you never knew it.

[Echo In Light]

12. +1

[CreekDog]

13. none of this is worth doing huh

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

17. At what cost?

For what this is costing us, as compared to other options, no it isn't "worth it".

[CreekDog]

19. I'm not going to tell the most vulnerable to pound sand while I have a good job and good insurance

f*** that. :eyes:

[zipplewrath]

21. No you'll just force them to pay insuranc preimums

You'll force folks to pay insurance premiums and make no attempt to ensure that they'll actually be able to afford to use it. You'll ensure that the insurance companies have record profits, with little if anything you can do about it. And folks will still go bankrupt, and you'll have done nothing about it. Feel good now?

[CreekDog]

23. the law requires a percentage of premiums to be spent on health care

nothing currently does that.

do i feel good? i slept well, thank you.

[zipplewrath]

26. And how is that calculated?

The definition of "health care related costs" is basically up to the company to decide. How ya think that's gonna go? Should create alot of lobbying dollars for Rahm though.

[karynnj]

33. What are the other PASSABLE options?

An option is only good if it can be passed.

[zipplewrath]

39. Innumerable

If one wanted to focus on just passing things, one could have started with removing the donut hole and allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices. They could also have allowed prescriptions from Canada. Beyond that, they could have legislated us away from a "fee for service" model and towards a method of healthcare that would have actually controlled costs. They could have lowered medicare to 55. They could have passed the pre-existing condition clause.

They didn't because they sold much of that off to try to get the support of the GOP and the insurance companies. They got neither.

[karynnj]

63. They needed 60 votes for most of those things

It was not the Republicans they needed - it was Lieberman and Nelson.

[zipplewrath]

68. Nah

Many of them could have been passed through reconciliation, some of them could have been very painful for the GOP to oppose. I strongly suspect they could have closed the donut hole without much opposition at all.

[karynnj]

72. Which they are planning on doing.

[zipplewrath]

80. along with mandatory requirements

Yes, along with mandatory purchase requirements, a Cadillac tax, and prohibitions on medicare negotiating drug prices.

[muffin1]

117. Yes, they are planning on doing it with this shitty bill.

They could have done it with strong public option, but they are either too wishy-washy, too afraid of the teabag 'movement', or too busy counting $$ from the insurance lobbies.

They screwed it up from the beginning by not starting negotiation with single payer. The public option could have been the compromise.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. It is--if we do it right and with the insurance-company-approved LOOPHOLES removed

I swear, some people on this board have Stockholm syndrome.

"Please, sir, may I be cheated again?"

[CreekDog]

94. Bork bork bork!

[On the Road]

9. Right -- I'm Single-Payer But Without the "Or Die" Part

The benefits you mention are real. I am concerned about affordability for low income people, even with the subsidies.

There is also the chance that any bill passed now will create 'facts on the ground' that may be hard to change later. Hopefully, the possibility of improvement is greater than the inertia of existing law.

[Beetwasher]

15. Lower Income People Will Have Numerous Coverage Options

More than likely, they will now be able to get coverage through their employer if they didn't before, since it will be mandated for most employers to now provide insurance. There will be incentives for employers to provide coverage and exceptions for business that meet certain threshholds, so it's possible they may not be able to get it from their employer, in which case...

...if they don't get it from their employer for whatever reason, they may be covered under the medicaid expansions. Their children will almost certainly be covered by SCHIP if they can't afford insurance.

There will also be thousands of new community health centers all across the country that will be providing care for minimal fees.

And lastly, there will be the exchange(s), where they will have the option of signing up for a non-profit plan, which is required to be available, that will be very affordable. There will be tax credits and supplements to help defray the costs of insurance for low income people who need to purchase on the exchange(s).

All insurance providers MUST provide MINIMUM coverages and charge the SAME premiums FOR EVERYONE on specific plans REGARDLESS of any pre-existing conditions.

[On the Road]

22. My Peception Has Changed

after moving to a working-class part of South Baltimore where very few people have an extra $100 a month, not to mention more. People can barely afford their rent. Many people have prison records and have to work under the table as a result. A lot of people make less than $1,000 a month.

I understand the rationale, but it will create a large class of scofflaws due to simple economic necessity. I do beleive it's going to be a real problem, and an emotional issue which will surprise a lot of supporters with its strength.

Those community health center may help a lot if they're accessible to enough people.

[karynnj]

38. People making less than $12,000 are covered by Medicaid

[On the Road]

73. Well, That Will be Good, Then

It seems like it could be an enormous budget hit, but we have to move forward to universal coverage, or as near as possible.

[Beetwasher]

41. Many Of Those People Will Be Covered By

The medicaid expansions. Their kids will be covered by SCHIP. Unfortunately, the plan is not perfect, and there will still be people who are not covered, but just because we can't cover everyone right now, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover as many as possible.

The community health centers are going to be a significant investment.

[zipplewrath]

31. Lotta loop holes here.

All insurance providers MUST provide MINIMUM coverages and charge the SAME premiums FOR EVERYONE on specific plans REGARDLESS of any pre-existing conditions.

There are so many loop holes in that statement it's hard to know where to begin.

Define "minimum" coverage. Heck, define "coverage".

What ensures they will be able to afford to pay for the CARE not what you've insisted they pay for the premiums. And who gets to run the "non-profit" plan? Will it be a contract to an existing provider through the state?

"on specific plan". If you don't qualify for one.....

What can they now charge folks who AREN'T low income and have a pre-existing condition?

[Beetwasher]

37. Semantic Bullshit

Define "afford". Define "Heck". Define "care".

We could play stupid fucking semantic games all day. I won't get caught up in your bullshit.

The legislation makes significant improvements to a fucked up system and tens of millions will have access to care that have not had it before. It's not perfect, but it's a start and will save lives and prevent a whole lot of suffering.

That's the bottom line.

[zipplewrath]

43. No it doesn't

I'm sorry you don't want to look at the details, but the reality is that this does nothing to control costs, does nothing to ensure that people will be able to afford health CARE and FORCES people to purchase insurance, regardless of their ability to afford it or use it. But I understand, White House talking points make you feel better than the real hard questions so that's all you want to hear.

[Beetwasher]

48. You Have Not Read The Bill OR You Don't Understand What You've Read

Or your just being dishonest.

The legislation will control costs in numerous ways.

And yes, the mandates are part of that cost control and people and businesses who can't afford it will have subsidies and tax credits. In addition, their will be federal review of premium increases. There will be non-profit insurance carriers on the exchanges. Prescription drug price controls. Medical Loss Ratios. And more.

Not to mention the separate repeal of the anti-trust exemption.

So, you just want to ignore all the price controls so you can spew your bullshit. Carry on.

[zipplewrath]

57. I'm not sure what you think the anti-trust will do

Predominately that allows insurance companies to make more accurate predictions about the future costs of health care. Without it, they'll have to add margin to their premiums to cover unforseen costs.

The legislation doesn't control COSTS of health CARE in many ways, and in fact specifically prevents the government from doing many of the things they could do. It addresses the costs of health INSURANCE. It is a regulatory model on the federal level. That is the same model the states have been using so unsuccessfully for the last several decades.

[Beetwasher]

61. Anti-Trust Exemption Allowed Insurance Carriers To LEGALLY Collude On Price Fixing

There will now be real competition since it will be illegal to do this and they can be brought up on federal charges if they continue to do so.

Sure, there's a lot MORE than can be done for cost control, but that doesn't mean that this bill does nothing. It does a lot, as I've shown, but of course there will be more work to do. No one who supports this legislation is saying the job would be done with this. Far from it.

[zipplewrath]

67. It's already illegal to collude

Removing their anti-trust exemption won't stop collusion on prices, that's already illegal. It may make it a bit easier to prosecute, but it isn't clear that will happen. Collusion is rarely prosecuted.

There still won't be "real" competition because many states already have little, if any, real competition. Changing the anti trust, nor this bill in general, won't particularly ensure that this will happen.

This bill doesn't specifically do any significant about cost controls. It relies heavily upon market forces, and some what upon some fairly vague regulation to accomplish anything. Truth is, it mostly is just going to try at the federal level, what the states have been trying for a couple of decades.

[Beetwasher]

71. You Have No Clue What You're Talking About

It's very obvious you're just spouting bullshit.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 4626 — Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act
(Rep. Perriello, D-Virginia, and 65 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 4626. The repeal of the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it applies to the health insurance industry would give American families and businesses, big and small, more control over their own health care choices by promoting greater insurance competition. The repeal also will outlaw existing, anti-competitive health insurance practices like price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation that drive up costs for all Americans. Health insurance reform should be built on a strong commitment to competition in all health care markets, including health insurance. This bill will benefit the American health care consumer by ensuring that competition has a prominent role in reforming health insurance markets throughout the Nation.

--snip--

I'm sure you'll just claim the admin. is lying, but who cares what you say. That's what the anti-trust exemption does, it allows them to fix prices.

The bill very specifically controls costs by having federal review of premium increases. It offers a non-profit option on the exchange (competition) and Medical Loss Ratios. The anti-trust exemption WILL stop collusion, despite your complete misrepresentation of it.

Having federal law is a big deal. DOJ can now prosecute violations. That's what enforcement is.

That's the truth. But keep spouting your bullshit.

[zipplewrath]

79. You're spouting talking points

There are independent evaluations of this move. Yes, removing it make it easier to prosecute. However, it is already illegal to collude. If it is happening, nothing in this bill really changes the landscape such that they would either A) decide to stop or B) make it harder to do. Collusion goes on in all sorts of industries these days. It is very hard to prosecute, and most industries don't have anti-trust exemptions. And there is a down side to removing their anti-trust exemption. Mostly, it would make it slightly harder to share data they use to keep rates DOWN.


http://www.wbur.org/npr/123421684

What would happen if the exemption were repealed?

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers "would have no significant effects on either the federal budget or the premiums that private insurers charged for health insurance." The CBO found that premiums might increase or decrease, "but in either case the magnitude of the effects is likely to be quite small."

[Beetwasher]

93. WRONG, It Is NOT Illegal For Insurance Co., That's What The Fucking Exemption Is

It was not illegal. Now it will be.

[zipplewrath]

97. No, do some research

The CBO has looked into this. They aren't allowed to collude to set rates. They are only allowed to share information about the costs of providing healthcare. It's about costs, not rates. Now, admittedly, it makes it harder to prove that they are colluding because they are legally sharing data and therefor "officially" coming the similar conclusions about what those rates should be. But even the CBO admits it won't change much either way.

[Beetwasher]

98. Umm, That's Colluding

Duh.

[zipplewrath]

100. No, it's not

Sharing cost data tells you what the costs of providing medical care are. That is different from knowing (and collluding upon) what the competition charges. After this repeal, there are other laws which still allow them to share the cost data.

[Beetwasher]

102. Of Course It Is!

Well then! Those pesky anti-trust laws must be completely meaningless then! :rofl:

[zipplewrath]

104. According to the CBO

It isn't particularly clear what repealing them would accomplished. In some scenarios the premiums go up, in others they go down, but not much in any particular direction. In this particular case, the anti-trust exemption may be of little use with respect to health insurance premium rates. They can be "pesky" with respect to mergers. Strangely, repealing it may actually make it easier for them to merge by weakening the feds authority to block mergers. (Again, probably not a big hitter either way since they could still block them, it would just make it more liable for legal action).

[Beetwasher]

106. It's Called Scrutiny And Federal Enforcement

That's a big deal. I'll agree, it MAY not NECESSARILY reduce premiums. But then again, it may help. Every little bit helps.

What it WILL do is open up another avenue for FEDERAL enforcement of possible illegal activities. More scrutiny and levels of enforcement on the industry is A GOOD THING.

[zipplewrath]

108. You imply the don't have enough tools

The federal government has plenty of tools to pursue such charges. The fact that they don't isn't going to be changed by this law. If they weren't interested before, they won't be now. If I don't want to drive a nail, it really doesn't matter how many hammers I have.

[Beetwasher]

119. Umm, Except Federal Laws To Enforce

There will NOW BE FEDERAL Laws to enforce. There weren't before.

[zipplewrath]

133. Yes there are

Collusion on premiums has always been illegal. And the current anti-trust exemption meant that the feds has particular authority to refuse mergers. The CBO is relatively clear that this measure will do little if anything.

[Beetwasher]

135. Not For Insurance Compa ies

That's what the antitrust exemption is.

[zipplewrath]

138. No, it's not

Go read the CBO report, or the law for that matter. They can share data concerning health care costs. They can't collude on setting premiums.

[Beetwasher]

140. wow u don't know what exempt means, how embarassing for u

[zipplewrath]

143. I'm afraid you haven't read the law

Or any of the related laws. It is fairly specific about what the exemption is and it isn't about collusions on premiums. And you know that or you'd be quoting the relevant language that exempted them.

[Beetwasher]

144. Well, If They're NOT Exempt, Why Repeal The Exemption, Mr. Mason?

Why bother?

Are you seriously claiming they are not exempt from anti-trust laws?

:rofl:

[zipplewrath]

150. Politically popular

Predominately because it is politically popular. Even the CBO suggested there wasn't much substance to repealing it since many of its functional features is also covered by other laws.

What I am claiming is that they are only exempt from some aspects of anti-trust laws with respect to sharing cost data. And there is actually more than one law allowing this.

[Beetwasher]

154. So, You ARE Claiming That Ins. CO's Are NOT Exempt From Ant-Trust Laws???

:rofl:

[zipplewrath]

155. You're repeating yourself

I presume you have nothing, because as I've explained several times, they are exempt from some aspects of anti-trust laws, but not all aspects.

[Beetwasher]

156. Yeah Yeah Yeah, You Only Deserve Mocking At This Point

You obviously are utterly clueless.

[zipplewrath]

157. And you've made your case so expertly.

mind explaining how an anti-trust exemption for sharing cost data has anything to do with colluding on premiums? It is, after all, a discussion forum.

[Beetwasher]

162. You Figure It Out

Mind telling exactly what federal laws currently regulate the Health Insurance Industry? USC, CFR's, and OMB cites would be appreciated.

[zipplewrath]

166. You can start here

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123421684&ft=1&f=1003

How is the antitrust exemption used?

Currently, all types of insurance have the antitrust exemption. Some lines of insurance, such as some property and casualty insurance, have historically formed organizations called rating bureaus that collect and pool claims data from different companies. This information allows insurers to more accurately predict how much they might end up paying out to customers and even set premium rates together.

But because health insurers tend to be large, and health risks tend to be fairly well-known and predictable, the health insurance industry doesn't share premium rate information about customers, says Art Lerner, who is co-chairman of the health care practice at Crowell & Moring, a Washington law firm. Lerner used to direct the FTC’s health care antitrust program.

Harrington noted that some regions are dominated by one or two insurers but said that has little to do with the McCarran-Ferguson exemption and much to do with how federal and state officials have enforced mergers and acquisitions. (The Government Accountability Office updated an earlier report on insurance market competitiveness on Feb. 27, 2009).

Randy Stutz, a research fellow at the American Antitrust Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group that favors stricter antitrust enforcement, said it's difficult to know whether insurers are engaging in behavior that would violate federal antitrust laws because "collusion is inherently secretive in nature," adding, "You sort of have a Catch-22."

He said that there isn't evidence of illegal activity. Still, he said, federal antitrust laws have become more flexible since the enactment of McCarran-Ferguson, so the exemption for insurers is no longer needed for them to share historical data.

"The activities that McCarran was probably designed to protect are likely already allowed under the federal antitrust laws," he said.

[Beetwasher]

170. Again What Fed Laws Apply?

That article confirms the exemption.

[zipplewrath]

171. There are thousands

What you can see from that article is what the exemption is. It is not to collude on premium pricing.

[Beetwasher]

173. Well Then Should b Easy to cite

Go ahead.

[zipplewrath]

174. All of 'em? nt

[Beetwasher]

179. If There Are Thousands Of Federal Regs That Apply To Ins. Co's

Price fixing then it should be easy to cite some of those federal regulations. Please cite appropriate USC, CFR or OMB Circulars. NPR articles that actually confirm the anti-trust exemption don't count.

[zipplewrath]

180. Fairly non-political source

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/McCarran-Ferguson+Act+of+1945

The McCarran-Ferguson Act also provides that the sherman anti-trust act of 1890, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., the clayton act of 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq., and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 41–51, apply to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by state law.

[Beetwasher]

181. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I Thought So, That's EXACTLY The Law That Provides The EXEMPTION!!! ROFL

It's that exemption that's being repealed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/23/repealing-antitrust-exemption-health-insurance-companies-0
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 4626 — Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act
(Rep. Perriello, D-Virginia, and 65 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 4626. The repeal of the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it applies to the health insurance industry would give American families and businesses, big and small, more control over their own health care choices by promoting greater insurance competition. The repeal also will outlaw existing, anti-competitive health insurance practices like price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation that drive up costs for all Americans. Health insurance reform should be built on a strong commitment to competition in all health care markets, including health insurance. This bill will benefit the American health care consumer by ensuring that competition has a prominent role in reforming health insurance markets throughout the Nation.


Check and mate. :rofl:

[zipplewrath]

184. Read more carefully

It doesn't give a blanket exemption. The exemption is limited, which is what I've been saying all along.

[Beetwasher]

185. LOL! PWND!!!

Umm, the limitation is not what you think it is. You have no clue what you're talking about.

It means that STATE laws are the laws that apply and it is "limited" to companies classified as "insurance". They are EXEMPT from the Federal laws. :rofl:

Check and mate. :rofl:

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/other/304474.htm

The McCarran-Ferguson Act gives the insurance industry a very limited exemption from the federal antitrust laws. To qualify for the exemption, an activity must satisfy three prerequisites. It must: (a) constitute the "business of insurance"; (b) be "regulated by State law"; and (c) not constitute "an agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation." In determining whether a particular activity qualifies as the "business of insurance," the Supreme Court has developed three factors to be considered: (1) whether the activity has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder's risk; (2) whether the activity is an integral part of the policy relationship between insurer and insured; and (3) whether the activity is limited to entities within the insurance industry. None of these criteria is dispositive in itself.

[zipplewrath]

186. read the link

There is a fair amount of case law concerning that issue. It isn't nearly as blanket as you suggest.

[Beetwasher]

187. PWND!

:rofl:

You said there were thousands of federal regs on ins. co's. Now that you've failed so spectacularly with that one, why don't you try another?

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

75. The separate repeal of the anti-trust exemptions

This means one of the things we might get after the House swallows the Senate's crappy bill. Correct? One of those things they 'promise' they'll fix after the odious bill is signed into law?

[Beetwasher]

77. The House Already Passed It

And the Senate will too. I know, sucks for you since you are so against reform, but it's going to happen. Deal with it.

[laughingliberal]

83. I'll believe the Senate will pass it when the Senate passes it

I've seen nothing from the Senate since the debate started except the push to make this bill as friendly to the industry as possible. Unless they plan to do this under reconciliation, I see no way we will get it past Lieberman and Nelson, and find one Republican to support it.

I could be wrong but this is my opinion based on the activities of the Senate over the past year. They've given me no reason to trust them.

And you have nothing more than your opinion about what they will do with it, either.

[Beetwasher]

99. No You Won't

You'll move the goalposts and whine about something else.

[JTFrog]

103. +1

Nailed it.

[laughingliberal]

123. You seem to think you have a crystal ball but you do not

I'm vigorously in support of the Senators who are pledging to support a Public Option under reconciliation and will not whine when they get it done. I'm cheerleading their efforts for all I'm worth right now.

[Beetwasher]

136. Mines Not Nearly As Good As yours

And yr predictions about the outcome of this legislation.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. There's no mandate on employers.

Employers who don't provide insurance will have to pay $750 per employee, which is a lot less (for most of them) than providing coverage.

[Beetwasher]

65. Umm, That's A Mandate With A Fine

Perhaps you believe it's a weak one, but it's a mandate. If you don't provide, you pay a fine. Additionally, there are not only going to be fines for not covering, but INCENTIVES for employers to provide coverage, including tax credits and subsidies.

Those employees not covered by their scumbag employer will have access to the exchange(s) where they will have a reasonably priced non-profit option to choose from (among others). They very well may recieve tax credits and subsidies to purchase insurance, or even be covered by the medicaid expansion and their children may be covered by SCHIP.

[laughingliberal]

76. Will be a lot cheaper for them to pay the fine than to provide medical benefits

This is the prime reason Walmart supports the bill.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

84. It does not suck to be me. But it could suck to be a low income worker

I'm wondering about the provision that will fine companies who don't provide insurance to workers who then qualify for a subsidy. Seems it would behoove companies not to hire the poor. Just one of those little unintended consequences they don't talk about in the press releases.

[Beetwasher]

96. Better That Not Having Any Opportunity To Have Coverage

Yeah, status quo, much better than actually DOING something.

[laughingliberal]

122. A choice of health care or a job? Kind of a tough call.

I've fought the status quo in health care and the move towards more and more higher profits since the middle 80's. I would prefer a bill that did not give more power to the for profits.

[Beetwasher]

139. Only in yr warped imagination is that the choice

Or is more fed regs somehow more power.

[midnight]

14. I wish I could be comforted by this list. But without a bit more detail, it

makes cost saving on the working class back still the avenue in which the cost savings was originally described by the President. Is that how it will be? Also will there be the mandates, and the IRS checks if insurance is not purchased?

I have not heard of this preventative care free of charge. Can you give me a link to explore?

When does this discrimination against existing health care kick in? I last heard a few years from when it is actually passed. Is that still correct. I hope I have that wrong.

Thanks for any help in clarifying these concerns...

[berni_mccoy]

18. Details are at the link, they go into each one

and further details would be in the bill itself. I've posted many more detailed posts on this topic, but it's a constant battle to counter the "There Are No Benefits Til 2014" posts that are going on around here.

[Cal Carpenter]

28. Dude, it's a press release from months ago

There are no details. Just more rhetoric.

You want to reassure people, post some hard facts. Specifics. Not canned PR crap.

[berni_mccoy]

49. "Dude", that is a release after the Senate Bill Was PASSED.

And it covers what was important about the bill, not just a PR statement.

[Cal Carpenter]

53. It covers 'what was important about the bill'?

Are you serious? Are you even trying? My uninsured neighbors and relatives and friends can go to that link and find out about all the immediate benefits they will have when the bill is signed?

You're telling people to go to the link for details. THERE ARE NO DETAILS AT THE LINK.

Yes, it is a press release, by definition it is a PR statement. It says 'newsroom' at the top and 'Back to Press releases' at the bottom.

Geez...

[berni_mccoy]

58. I guess these details at the link would be calling you a liar

Lowering Costs, Reducing the Deficit and Extending Coverage to Millions of Americans

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a fiscally responsible bill that will reduce the deficit, extend coverage to millions of Americans and meet the President’s cost test. Among other things, it will:

· Cut the budget deficit by $132 billion (over 10 years) – going further than any other bill
· Cut the budget deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the second decade
· Ensure that more than 94% of Americans have affordable coverage options – including a 31 million person reduction in the uninsured

Cracking Down on Insurer Abuses and Creating Competition

Our bill changes the way health insurance companies do business. This legislation will ensure that the American people, rather than big insurance companies have the upper hand when it comes to their health care coverage by:

· Prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions
· Stopping insurers from dropping health insurance coverage when someone gets sick
· Leveling the playing field for consumers by providing a health insurance marketplace for consumers, to ensure competition, lower costs and provide individuals the freedom to choose the right health insurance plan for them
· Banning pre-existing condition exclusions for children
· Strengthening medical loss ratios
· Eliminating discrimination based on gender
· Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care
· Improving health coverage for America’s seniors
· Creating multi-state insurance options overseen by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to give consumers affordable choices
· Ensuring free choice vouchers for eligible workers
· Strengthening patient protections like choice of doctors and access to emergency care

Helping Small Business

The legislation will help reduce costs for small businesses by making health care more affordable for their employees. Qualifying small businesses will also be rewarded for providing health care coverage to their employees under the legislation by making them eligible for tax credits of up to 50 percent of their premiums.

Protecting Seniors

The Medicare program for America’s seniors is a sacred trust with our seniors and people with disabilities and this bill makes Medicare a stronger, more sustainable program. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will strengthen health care for America’s seniors by increasing quality and reducing costs by:

· Strengthening the financial health of Medicare
· Reducing the size of the coverage gap in Medicare Part D, known as the “doughnut hole,” by $500 in the first year
· Making prescription drugs more affordable
· Ensuring affordable, quality long-term care
· Improving follow-up care after a hospitalization
· Increasing access to additional health care providers through Medicare

Investing in Doctors and Nurses

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will address shortages in primary care and other areas of practice by making necessary investments in our nation’s health care workforce, including the National Health Service Corps and the Scholarship and Loan Repayment Program. It will also create incentives for primary care practitioners and for providers to serve underserved areas.

· Investing in Community Health Centers to expand access to health care in underserved communities
· Expanding funding and training for rural health care providers, physicians and other health care providers

Promoting Prevention and Wellness

The bill will enhance preventive health care to help Americans live healthy lives and help restrain the growth of health care costs over time by:

· Eliminating co-pays and deductibles for recommended preventive care
· Providing individuals with the information they need to make healthy decisions
· Investing in a national prevention and public health strategy

[Cal Carpenter]

64. LOL, if you think THOSE are details

Then you clearly have no idea what it's like for people who are sick, broke, and uninsured. They want to know - "when can I go to a doctor/get my meds and how much will it cost?" This PRESS RELEASE does everything it can to avoid answering those questions.

What does 'affordable' mean? Can we answer that question?

Seriously, wow...what I would do to be in a frame of mind where that rhetoric is meaningful.

[Cal Carpenter]

25. Wow

I was hoping someone would post a definition of 'empty platitudes and rhetoric' today. And here you did it by example, well done. :eyes:

Shit, I even followed the link and it was worse than I thought. You're quoting a press release from 3 months ago?

The only "right-wing, anti-health care reform talking point(s)" I see around here are the people trying to tell suffering people this pro-insurance-industry bill will help them when, for the vast majority of them, it won't. Trying to make people fall for that vague language as if it means something, especially with that condescending attitude of 'oh if you just read the bill you'd know...'

No dice.

[DevonRex]

30. Thank you. It's good to know the facts. K&R nt

[Xithras]

32. Yay! A press release! If you actually look at the bill, the "good" quickly evaporates.

Providing affordable coverage to the uninsured with pre-existing conditions
It "provides" no such thing. It simply requires the insurance companies sell it to you, at prices much higher than those paid by otherwise "healthy" people. The Senate bill also only eliminated pre-existing condition exclusions for CHILDREN, while permitting them to remain for adults. Those kids are going to be screwed when they hit 25 and can't be covered by their parents policies anymore.

Improving care to seniors
It updates Medicare coverage. A laudable goal, but it's a slap in the face to most of us. They improved the Public Option for the elderly, while giving the rest of America the middle finger when we asked for ours.

Lowering prescription drug costs
Again, for Medicare recipients. When the rest of us asked for price caps, legalized importation, or other benefits that would lower OUR drug costs, we were once again introduced to that finger.

Reducing costs for small businesses through tax credits on premiums
Small businesses almost never offer comprehensive health insurance coverage anyway, the bill doesn't require them to start offering it, and the "credit" is so small that it isn't going to change that fact. Lowering costs by a few thousand a year is good, but I used to OWN a small business, and we spent more than $7000 per year, per employee on coverage. Most businesses can't afford that, even if you lower it to $3500 as this bill would. That's still more than $50,000 a year for a small shop with 15 employees. And for those that decide to take the plunge anyway? The bill requires that premiums be "affordable", but then goes on to define "affordable" as anything under $750 a month. Have fun affording that on Starbucks barista wages.

Extending coverage for young adults
Passing a law that says "Buy this or we will punish you" doesn't quality as "extending coverage" to me.

Providing preventative care free of charge
Yeah, no co-pays for preventative care and wellness checkups! What a savings! Oh, wait. My insurance company already does that. So do nearly all insurance companies. They figured out a long time ago that it's cheaper to keep you from getting sick in the first place, than to wait until you're sick and fork out cash for expensive hospital stays. This is a case of someone selling us something that we already have

Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of salary, gender or existing illness
So, by your definition, if I open up a restaraunt and charge black people three times more for their food than white people, I'm not really discriminating? Because that's what this bill does. Previously, many were excluded. Now, in order to be more "accepting", we're going to let them in the door...but penalize them heavily for something they have no control over.

Eliminating lifetime limits on the amount of coverage a person may receive
This is sort of an odd one. Yes, it's good, and it's one of the few bright spots in the bill. But the reality is that it's an empty gesture that few people will care about. Why not? Because unless you're one of the few people unlucky enough to be stricken by a long term chronic disease like leukemia, you're never going to hit those caps anyway. It's truly a great thing for the few people who need it, but it offers nothing to virtually everybody else. It's a token gesture for most of us.

Making health insurance plans more transparent and competitive
By undermining the authority of state insurance regulators, and creating a Delaware-style insurance market that will encourage a legislative race to the bottom as insurance companies move their offices to the states offering the lowest taxes, regulation, and oversight. Currently, to offer any insurance policy in California, an insurance company must have the policy vetted by the State Insurance Commissioner (an elected position) to verify that it isn't predatory and offers adequate coverage to its buyers. If the insurance company tries to screw the policyholder, that insurance commissioner has the ability to launch an investigation that can result in millions of dollars in fines for the insurance company. The system is so effective that insurance companies often simply relent when the state insurance commissioners office becomes involved in a dispute. The senate bill largely ends the authority of the state insurance commissioners, by placing them under the regulation of an unelected federal office. Yep, THAT is going to be responsive.

Sorry, the bill is a pig, no matter how much you try to dress it up.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

50. That's it, call us cheerleaders. Even though we represent those who need this reform...

we're simply just cheerleading. I'm so glad you bubbled that down for everyone.

[Cal Carpenter]

60. Well why don't you respond to post #32

A very thoughtful point by point breakdown of this bill. Tell us where Xithras is wrong. Add some substance to the claims YOU MADE in the OP and back it up with something other than a PRESS RELEASE.

[laughingliberal]

78. Who needs substance? We have press releases from the WH! Yay! nt

[t0dd]

105. Defending Obama is all he is capable of, not backing up his talking points..

But he does come up with some clever spin when he needs to. When someone tried to tell him it was wrong for Obama to oppose same-sex marriage, he told all of us how Obama is really for it, but if he comes out for it, that could harm the momentum. :crazy: :rofl:

[Lorien]

35. 'Providing affordable coverage to the uninsured with pre-existing conditions" um, yeah

what will they cal "affordable" and what about DEDUCTIBLES and actual CLAIMS???? I'm self employed and have the insurance I can afford. It comes with a 12k deductible, a 20% copay AFTER the deductible is paid, plus they automatically turn down all significant claims. After paying them $78,000 over the years they have paid out a grand total of $200.00 worth of claims. HOW DOES THAT FUCKING HELP ME?????? Now everyone can "enjoy" the same benefits? Tell us berni; just how is your HCR bill going to "fix" this?

[laughingliberal]

86. Oh, now. There you go interrupting perfectly good talking points with facts. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. I'm in a similar situation

All I get for my monthly premiums (which are not affordable many months, given my fluctuating income, but they are withdrawn from my bank account like clockwork every month, or else I have to pay quarterly or annually, which would be REALLY unaffordable) is notices telling me:

1. It's time for your eye exam (which they don't pay for).

2. That medical treatment used up $x of your deductible. (I have never used up more than 25% of my deductible.)

3, You're at an age where you should have a colonoscopy (which they don't pay for, and which costs more than my monthly rent)

I'm over 50, so the insurance companies ARE legally allowed to discriminate me. That will not change.

Do you see why I am not happy about this bill? Can you ardent advocates just stop dismissing the people with the real lives and the real concerns, just because you want to "win one for our side"?

[Cal Carpenter]

112. That's what's so crazy to me - the disconnect from reality

Telling me that this vague press release filled with rhetoric has 'details'.

To me, details mean when does it start and what does it cost? And to most people who are struggling to get health care, that's what they want to know. The guy who posted this thread isn't even trying to answer that. It's all a game to some people - they are on the winning side now and that's all that matters.

It must be totally abstract to them, to not even understand the real world effects on people...

[City Lights]

44. "Within the first year" is not the same as "immediate."

It's a step in the right direction, but to anyone with a pre-existing condition, "within the first year" is far from "immediate."

[CreekDog]

47. Agreed but it's certainly sooner than a better bill will come around

sad to say.

[berni_mccoy]

51. For any legislation, the first year *is* immediate. The bill was passed in December 2009

Many of the first year items would have already started or will start by next Month.

[madfloridian]

52. Cutting Medicare to pay for the new bill will not help seniors.

Cutting it by hundreds of billions will hurt seniors.

[guitar man]

55. For those of us already insured

And paying outrageous premiums, does it offer any relief? It's hard to tell from what I'm reading here.

[laughingliberal]

85. The only thing I've seen which could, possibly, reduce premiums on anyone without cutting benefits

is the MLR the bill imposes. But the MLR of 85% that made it into the bill is the one the industry fought for and the insiders have said this is the level at which they can easily manipulate the numbers.

[guitar man]

107. Thanks

One of two things is going to happen come Jan 1 2011. Either my premiums are reduced or I drop coverage. I'm not paying them anymore.my paycheck has gotten smaller year after year and it's to the point where it isn't feasable anymore. And if they mandate that I pay what I'm paying now or more, I will resign from
my job before I will pay it. I could go work at 7-11 and have a lot less headache.

[amborin]

56. that's a white house press release! with lots of lipstick

[berni_mccoy]

59. You like lipstick, don't you? And you like to use it when the facts are against you.

[amborin]

137. sorry, but the facts are against this HCR bill; it's a sham

[laughingliberal]

70. Lol! Like I can't look up the WH talking points for myself. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

87. It is a press release from last year

Lacking in specifics in any area. It reads like a list of weasel words for weasel training purposes.

[laughingliberal]

90. "weasel training purposes"

AKA the Message Discipline Team.

[Donnachaidh]

91. ROFLMAO!!!! I do believe you nailed it!

*weasel training purposes*

:rofl: :rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

109. It's Facts About the BILL that PASSED the Senate in DECEMBER. Oh, And Here Is Franken DEFENDING IT

Putting down the same damn talking points many here have raised:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1la0IwxjE

[Lydia Leftcoast]

118. I'm from Minnesota and I voted for Franken, but

he's a lot wealthier than I am, and he now has a lot better health care than I do, so what does he know? Seriously.

[berni_mccoy]

124. So you voted for a guy you now believe is in it for himself?! You are saying FRANKEN is in this for

himself? You are seriously stuck in the bullshit gear.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. Stop pretending to be stupid

You're arguing like a Republican, arguing against something I didn't say.

I sure did vote for Franken, because the alternative was Norm Coleman.

I did not say that he was in it for himself. I said that he was too wealthy to understand what it's like for ordinary people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. All you people who are so all-fired eager to see this bill pass

We'll see how you like it when it does nothing to rein in insurance premiums, or when you hit age 50 and find that your premiums have suddenly tripled, or when you find that high deductibles don't necessarily make the premiums or health care affordable, or that tax credits coming once a year don't help you afford the monthly premiums, or when the insurance company cuts you off for a new definition of "fraud" that their lawyers dreamed up, or when you've become unemployed or have a bad couple of month in your business and you're still required to pay for a policy that doesn't cover much of anything, because you haven't been poor long enough to qualify for Medicaid.

In other words, when reality hits.

And sad to say, people are going to blame the Democrats.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. Look, I am one of the many who is being screwed over under the current system

This bill will do NOTHING for me.

In particular, any system that allows high deductibles (unknown in any other country I've ever heard of) is simply doing back-door rationing.

Having a high-deductible plan (which is what most of the insurance available to the middle class will be under your beloved plan) can be the same as having NO insurance.

I am recovering from a broken elbow, for which I have to pay the full cost of treatment, at a time when business has been down for several months. I probably could have paid for the doctor's visits and splints, etc. easily if I hadn't had to pay hundreds of dollars in insurance premiums per month.

I'd be willing to pay a copay of as much as $100 per office visit, if there were no deductibles, but I will be out over $1000 by the time I'm through--that's with insurance, on top of my monthly premiums.

I SERIOUSLY considered not going to the doctor, because I had an idea what it would cost, and I knew I couldn't afford it.

You get why I'm angry at the current system and even angrier and the House and Senate bills that actually institutionalize deductibles and explicitly allow 15% overhead?

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY BAN DEDUCTIBLES? It really shows who's in charge here--the insurance companies get to help write the laws that regulate them.

I don't want something for nothing, but as things stand, I'm getting nothing for something. Even my car insurance pays out promptly if I have a claim, without eight exchanges of paperwork.

You must be awfully comfortable (let me guess, under 50 with a job that has good benefits?) if you think high deductibles are just fine or if you don't respond to people's real concerns and just repeat DLC talking points about "wanting people to die."

It does NO good to be qualified for insurance if you can't afford the premiums and deductibles, and the charts that I have seen for the subsidies show that they cut out at an income level that I achieve in many years.

By the way, what form will those subsidies take?

Tax credits? Ha! That's a millionaire's idea of good deal. A tax credit does NOTHING when you can't meet your immediate expenses. Only a very affluent person would believe that.

Direct payments to the insured? Ooh, a whole new bureaucracy!

Direct payments to the insurance companies? Ooh, a whole new bureaucracy AND direct corporate welfare! Such a deal!

REALITY, berni mccoy. Sometimes it collides with the ideas of the millionaires in the House and Senate.

[Wardoc]

114. No, we won't, because we are not against actual health care. We are against this crap.

[spoony]

115. Ah, emotional blackmail. When all else fails... nt

[berni_mccoy]

121. Kettle, pot, all that black.

[spoony]

158. So which are you admitting you are?

You know that when you say that, you're essentially agreeing with the charge leveled at you? And without me ever doing the same? Shit you make it easy.

[arcadian]

178. You're just simply not a rational.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

116. They like to unrec the facts, too.

Thanks bernie for your indefatiguable work on getting the Heatlth Care Reform facts out.

Would you consider posting this in the BOG, too?

[Vinca]

120. I will breathe easier when I know what they consider "affordable."

The last "affordable," state-sponsored plan I checked out was about $20,000 a year for my husband and I with the usual huge deductibles and co-pays. Aging in America really sucks.

[sendero]

126. Show me the LANGUAGE IN THE BILL..

... that mandates "affordable" coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. This I gotta see.

[berni_mccoy]

127. Such a bogus argument. The claim has been made by many here that no benefits start for years

I've proven that wrong. Case made.

I don't need to show you shit in the bill.

And you don't even have to take my word for it. You can listen to one of the most progressive Senators in the Senate defend it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1la0IwxjE

[sendero]

146. That's what I thought....

.... a year or two from now we will know. I'm betting that insurance companies charge a huge premium for pre-existing conditions, and if there isn't EXPLICIT LANGUAGE in the bill to prevent it you can count on it.

As for another politician blowing his lying pie hole I could give two shits.

Show me the LANGUAGE.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

153. In other words, you don't have a CLUE what "affordable" means

in actual NUMBERS.

You can't even give a LINK to the actual NUMBERS.

You're just accepting the idea of affordability without PROOF, assurances from a bunch of millionaires and the lobbyists who help finance them, that coverage will be at some undefined level of "affordability."

[bvar22]

128. And then there IS this:

LESS than 35% of ALL Americans support Mandates without a Public Option.

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

There is some good in this bill to make it seem more palatable,
but the cost of enshrining the For Profit Health Insurance Industry as the gateway to Health Care in America is HORRIBLE.

There is going to be a Blood Bath in 2010.
There will be NO "Fixing it Later".
There will be NO "adding a Public Option later."
If the Democrats can't do it NOW, it will NEVER be done.
All those nice "regulations" that make this bill seem palatable will be quickly "de-regulated" after 2010/2012.
That is what Republicans and "Centrist" Democrats do...De-Regulate.

Good luck selling this piece of shit to the American People.
If it passes, it WILL be Pyrrhic Victory.

[berni_mccoy]

129. Um, that was MA voters, not ALL Americans.

And that is not at all what you claim it to be. Not to mention it has nothing to do with DUers posting dishonest bullshit about the current HCR Bill. That IS Happening.

[laughingliberal]

130. True. Nationwide the support for a PO is only 72%

Support for a mandate with no PO is about 33%.

[berni_mccoy]

141. Irrelevant to the point of the post. Change the subject all you want.

It doesn't change the truth that many here are spreading falsehoods about the HCR Bill and trying to kill it when it would bring health care to 31 million who don't have it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

149. Talk about spreading falsehoods--

You say it will make coverage "affordable," and yet you provide no precise figures.

See, those of us with experience in the real world don't trust the insurance companies AT ALL. If there is a loophole in this bill, they will find it and use it to screw over as many people as possible. That's what they do.

That's not my imagination. That's what I get from people who have worked for insurance companies or who currently work for one reluctantly because it's the only job they can get.

[Cal Carpenter]

131. What does AFFORDABLE mean?

If this bill is both beneficial and transparent, then it shouldn't be hard to tell us what is meant by AFFORDABLE, right?

The whole thing relies on this vague premise of 'Affordable' insurance policies. What does that mean?

There should be a simple answer to that. Not a link to a video, but a direct quote or definition. Why is that so hard? :shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

142. It means 31 million more Americans will be able to go see a doctor who can't see one today

That's what 'affordable' means.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

148. Nice try, berni, but you're still repeating talking points and not responding to what people SAY

There's nothing in there about access to health care, only a requirement to buy insurance--that may be too expensive to use once you are on the income rung just above the level that is subsidized.

The thousands of dollars I spend on insurance premiums every year is money that is NOT available for buying actual CARE, since I have a high deductible.

This bill still allows high deductibles, which are the American way of rationing.

[Cal Carpenter]

151. That's not an answer to the question

You are clearly very passionate about this - maybe too much so to see what people are asking. Your answers are vague and repetitive.

Let me give you some comparison: The 'Making Home Affordable' Act. I refinanced my house a few months ago, simply to get a lower interest rate. I was 'above water', I didn't have any late payments or fear of losing my home. Just wanted to save $100 a month. Little did I know, until a couple days before closing, that I was being included in this Making Home Affordable Act. I'm not even sure what the benefit was to me - maybe lower closing costs, maybe I saved a quarter point, I don't know. But I was counted as someone whose home was saved by this program, whose life was made 'Affordable' by this program. And I didn't even need it.

Meanwhile, there are foreclosures all over my town, people losing their homes with nowhere to go.

So what was affordable about that program? It used the same language as the one you are using.

What's the difference? Is it a pile of crumbs to people who don't really need it, while leaving those in dire straits exactly where they are?

What is 'affordable' to someone who barely makes their bills each month? $5 a month? $200 a month?

What does it mean? I don't want to watch a video. I'm asking a simple question with a simple answer, and as someone who so passionately supports this program I'm sure you must know. So, one more time:

What does 'affordable' mean?

[renie408]

161. It means that your insurance will cost $312.94 a year.

I think probably there are a lot of moving parts which factor in to what is 'affordable'. Like what YOU can afford might be different from what I can afford. I am thinking that there is no simple answer for what is affordable for 48 million DIFFERENT people.

One thing I do know, I cannot afford what is currently called health insurance AT ALL. I can't even try to afford it. So, no matter what, this bill will help ME out. I also know that pissing on THIS bill isn't going to make another bill pass. It is only likely to tank reform completely. I am not happy, not happy at all, with how this has turned out. But if you think that dicking around and putting this off any longer is going to get anything to pass, you are wrong.

[Cal Carpenter]

165. ...what YOU can afford might be different from what I can afford...

Exactly. And who is defining this as affordable? People who make a shitload more money than the people who need help, people who already have the best insurance plans available, people who in large numbers have proven to be working for the interests of industry and not of people.

Which is why the word itself is not enough.

I am NOT 'pissing on a bill' or dicking around or whatever - I am asking a straightforward fucking question on a discussion board, okay? I want to know what the bill means for real people on a day-to-day basis, and I don't trust politicians in the capitol to have a goddamn clue about what affordable means. I am not comfortable assuming that their definition has any basis in reality. Are you?

eta: The OP makes claims about this program, all I'm doing is asking him to back it up. So far it hasn't happened. If people are going to try to convince me that this bill is good for people, then they've gotta do a better job than this guy, that's for sure.

[renie408]

176. There isn't a straight forward answer.

That's my point. Which you agree with. Obviously, my affordable and your affordable might be two different things. But the fact that the current system sucks is probably true for both of us....and a WHOLE lotta other people.

What do you think happens if this bill does not go through?

[Cal Carpenter]

177. If there is no straightforward answer to a simple question

then there is no way for me to speculate on what will happen if this bill does or doesn't pass, is there?

Good lord, of course the current system sucks. And everything I've read makes it sound like this bill ain't gonna help - in fact, it rewards the very entities that make our system suck today. So here are ardent supporters of this bill and they can't even define the most basic terms in the bill?

It's not some symbolic resolution here. It's HEALTH CARE. Real people wrote this bill. What do those people mean by 'affordable'?

Looks to me like it's another load of shit, and frankly if it does pass I don't expect improvement for the vast majority of those who need it, and I do expect to see obscene profits for the health insurance companies. And I also expect to see a lot of finger pointing later - "look at how the feds fucked up health care - the government can't do anything right! Let's privatize everything!!!1!"

Hey, it's working for schools, for prisons, for everything else.

You think this bill is a step forward?

I must live in backwards land.. :crazy:

[berni_mccoy]

132. For those who can't handle the TRUTH here is FRANKEN saying the same thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr1la0IwxjE

The benefits that begin immediately.

[Stinky The Clown]

152. .....

[berni_mccoy]

163. !

[Stinky The Clown]

169. :X

No way am I posting the next obvious pictograph.

Have fun playing twister to stay on message, though.

:hi:

[kjackson227]

159. Looks like a pretty good start to me...

but what do I know, I'm just an average middle-class American.

[renie408]

160. I am uninsured and I will take what I can get and screw the all or nothing mentality.

Actually, not to get into a long story, I am 'uninsurable'. The insurance companies say I MIGHT have a pre-existing condition, which I cannot disprove, so I cannot get insurance. Since the condition is MS, which produces such a broad range of problems, they will not even give me coverage that excludes MS.

Anywho, I will take a bill that will allow me to purchase insurance even given my maybe pre-existing condition. It is a STEP in the right direction. Is it what I wanted a year ago? No. But I will take what I can get. Yes, it is a compromise. It is so disheartening to hear the same old "all or nothing" arguments which stand tall on principle, but fall short on practicality. Yes, I imagine that somebody wants to offer the usual chest thumping, moist eyed passionate speech about blah blah blah. WTFE. I need insurance and sooner rather than later.

That 'all or nothing' mentality is what gets us nothing.

[girl gone mad]

175. I think you should be asking some serious questions about the bill.

A very trusted adviser who has followed the legislation from beginning to now has told me in no uncertain terms that people with pre-existing conditions will not be better off. There are too many loopholes and too few strings. The clause that proponents hold up as the centerpiece of this reform is completely hollow. I would urge you to dig deeper.

[laughingliberal]

182. Great advice. But few will take it

If it's not in a White House press release or a set of the supporters' talking points, many will never see it. And many are in for a very, very rude awakening once this becomes law.

[branders seine]

164. Is your subject

a confession or an accusation?

[berni_mccoy]

167. Like so many others in this thread who have no facts or valid arguments...

you resort to personal attacks.

Very telling.

[branders seine]

168. No. I asked a question.

Your unwillingness (or inability) to answer is what is telling.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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