Your Questions About Health Care Reform Answered

Ok, so there's been a lot of misinformation about proposals to reform the health insurance industry and provide (near) universal coverage. Understandable! It's complicated stuff. Herewith, I'll try to answer some questions

1) Is it true that all of the bills currently proposed would end the practice of "rescission," whereby health insurance providers refuse to treat customers who've paid their premiums simply because they've become ill?

No! That's a common misunderstanding. Actually, all of the bills would ban incisions, that is, they would legally bar surgeons from performing surgery until a panel of twelve gay illegal immigrant government bureaucrats unanimously signed off on the procedure.

2) Is it true that health care reform would ban insurers from refusing to insure people because of pre-existing conditions?

Wrong again. To get rid of health inequality, the bills actually mandate that every American be given a pre-existing condition. A National Illness Commission, with academics appointed from Harvard, Reed College and Berkeley, will evaluate each citizen, and based on their demographic profile, choose their malady. Each disease or syndrome is scored on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. White christian men will receive pre-existing conditions of 8 or higher. Black people, "wise latinas," and ACORN members will be exempted.

3) I heard the proposals currently under consideration provide seniors with option of free counseling sessions under Medicare, where they can discuss a living will and end-of-life care.

That's a huge misconception. The bills require all senior citizens (who are non union members) be euthanized on their 70th birthday. Under section 278(c)ii all last rites will be performed by Jeremiah Wright using a Q'uran.

4) I've heard the bills being proposed would require insurers to provide preventative care, like mammograms, free of charge.

No, but all lactating mothers will be forced to breast-feed poor children.

5) Will the current bills plug the "donut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug benefit so seniors don't have to pay exorbitant out of pocket expenses for their medication?

Absolutely not. The legislation will ban donuts.

Comments (218)

1. actually,

   the joke's on you, mr. hayes.

   "We're on a precarious road -- and wherever it leads, it's not toward democracy."

   http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/white- houses-deal-with-big-pharma.html

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 10:59am

2. The truth is America needs health care reform and delivery of that care reformed...not the Federal Govt in charge..

   and that is the noise one is hearing accross the country...and that is NOT the sound the dems in Congress want to hear...

   and they will pass their bill anyway.

   Sad...

   Posted by YourJomamma at 08/11/2009 @ 11:17am

3. If as a nation we do not pass reform that leads to universal health care, that will confirm we are the dumbest nation on earth. We have the chance to reduce costs for all, cover everyone and improve our nation's health and finances, but we are letting the lies of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies convince us to go against our own welfare, it is ridiculous. Please everyone, get out there, speak up, write letters, march, demonstrate, get active until we get solid health care reform!

   Posted by felipejs at 08/11/2009 @ 11:44am

4. ...not the Federal Govt in charge..

   Posted by YourJomamma at 08/11/2009 @ 11:17am

   YJ it will either be a federal buearacrat or a corporate one. At least a federal one is not aiming to increase the pot of his christmas bonus, by denying coverage. It is the profit motive that has corrupted the current system, so that the power is not now in the hands of the doctors or patients but with the insurance companies. Only the federal government can protect us from corporate tyranny.

   Posted by Extraneous at 08/11/2009 @ 11:48am

5. Yes, it would be great if the outright lies went away. There are plenty of critiques for Obama healthcare w/out lying.

   1. The deal Obama made with pharma will have a negative impact on congress / medicare, states negotiating for better prices.

   2. Most of the so called cost saving measures will increase insurance premiums.

   3. While its great to get rid of all these preexisting conditions, only a fool would assume a spike in health care costs will not follow.

   Currently we have a system in which government can pay for programs through hospitals cost shifting to those on private / public insurance. Health care inflation is nothing else but a working / middle class tax increase. There is nothing in the plan thus far that moves away from this model.

   I actually think if single payer can not pass we are better off doing nothing. The so called reform seems to make the problems of the status quot even worse.

   Posted by proletariat at 08/11/2009 @ 11:53am

6. Nice to see the angry Liberals developing a senses of humor.

   Very Good Chris.

   Posted by william.harry13 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:11pm

7. Thanks for the helpful info. That answers all my questions about the new government healthcare program. Sounds good to me, except for the part about getting rid of donuts. Can we take that one off the table, so I can keep my donuts on my table?

   Posted by caliber1 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:12pm

8. Right-wingers cannot stand to be mocked, Mr Hayes.

   They see it as "part of Saul Alinsky's plan to destroy opposition"....

   Oh, unless it's a Paul Shanklin song parody on Rush...then it's okay.

   Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 12:18pm

9. Christopher, Thanks for showing a sense of humor here. There is a chance that some of the right wing fruit baskets posting here may think that you are serious though! LOL

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:26pm

10. If as a nation we do not pass reform that leads to universal health care, that will confirm we are the dumbest nation on earth.

    Posted by felipejs at 08/11/2009 @ 11:44am

    Way too late for that.

    Enough people voted for GWB that he was somehow able to become president, not just once, but twice! It's already been confirmed.

    Posted by stubearto at 08/11/2009 @ 12:26pm

11. This is NOT about OBAMA, American Idiots! He has spelled out NO PLAN.

    But, unfortunately, neither is the insurance bill about health care....

    If the Dems had given us something to stand up for, these shout-downs and misconceptions would be easy to calm.

    I am not putting my butt on the line for a plan that just rewards the insaurance industry for killing people.

    The Nation has been ridiculously in love with Obama, is losing reputation and subscribers and needs desparately to get over him and the loathsome Democratic party, who I loathe only a little less than the GOP.

    I agree with proletariat---this monstrously horrible bill will make it impossible to pass real reform and will pacify people still covered by greedy, psychopathic insurance companies.

    Here's a good joke---the first Af Am president (whom neo-liberals assumed would be a liberal, by race, I guess) will prop up Wall St, multinational corps., the banksters, refuse to overturn illegal acts by former psychos, will increase military spending and give the industries killing us huge amounts of tax dollars...!!!

    Get it?

    Posted by kdelphi95 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:28pm

12. very clever retort to the screaming teabaggers, but robert reich is correct. any deal with Big Pharma is terrible for the american people. thanks for the link FZ.

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 12:37pm

13. Laughed my butt off on this one, Chris.

    However, dour corporate beancounters may be considering the "laughter is the best medicine" idea. Retro amusement parks would be given new life & incorporated into existing medical complexes.

    Cardiac patients wheeled into "fun houses" & those with cancer strapped to roller coasters would allow treatment at slightly more cost effective rates than present high tech, specialized ones.

    Is this the wave of the future?

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/11/2009 @ 12:53pm

14. Get it?

    Posted by kdelphi95 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:28pm

    So, what are you trying to say? Just kidding. You know Mask is almost guaranteed to respond to your post saying that you are a left wing fringe wacked-out unit. I've had the audacity to say that out "democratic congress and president" aren't representing those who voted them into office and told that I am too far on the left side of the spectrum to expect to see what I want happen in D.C. You, my friend sound like you are even further to the left than I

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:54pm

15. Great post, and now I'm nervous about the donuts.

    Talking Points Memo is covering some activity outside Obama's town hall in New Hampshire. New England seems to be a mixed bag when it comes to the First Amendment. In Cambridge, Mass., you can get arrested in your own home for not saying "Sir, yes sir!" to a cop who has mistaken you for a burglar. But in nearby New Hampshire, you can walk around at a presidential speech with a gun in your holster while making references to Jefferson's "blood of tyrants" quote. Perhaps Eric Alterman can post a class-based analysis that can shed light on the freedoms the angry, screaming and now armed mobs are enjoying at the town halls.

    Posted by RLawrence at 08/11/2009 @ 12:56pm

16. Can we have anyone we want euthanized? Could a group of people get together and form a death board and select people for the big sleep? Because I have a list and I know I could get quite a few people to go along with several people on it. What would be required to set up a death board? Is it going to be a state or federal thing? How many people would I need to appoint to the board? Is the only requirement that the person is not of benefit to society?

    Posted by gabbyhayes at 08/11/2009 @ 1:27pm

17. Hey Chris,

    I would post a link to your article, but some of the readers would not find it funny and before you know it, they would incorporate your humorous responses into their already crazy rant.

    Gee, can you imagine their angst at having to appear before 12 gays to argue their need for healthcare. That alone would save all sorts of money as they would be apoplexic at the mere thought of that confrontation.

    Posted by afisher at 08/11/2009 @ 1:32pm

18. This health care plan is a bad one cobbled together at the command of Obama who wanted to "rush" something through before the 12010 election. The American public has now read the bill and is furious. Details of where the stimulus went for skate parks, turtle bridges, swamp frog studies , pig stink studies ect. and mostly to the unions. All spent with our hard earned dollars is not helping. Only 18% of Americans are union members. He has ignored main street.Sending union thugs in the side door ahead of those waiting for hours to get in to the hearings shows just where the mind set of this administration is. Arrogant beyond belief. This is NOT about misinformation it is all about people now reading this monstrosity bill. They need to throw it out and start over. An issue like this should be bipartisan and given all the time it takes to get it right.

    Posted by Katie10 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:38pm

19. Obama has only been in office for six monthes, Crimeny, give him a chance, he may still do right for the people yet. Please remember what he came onto, and what he has to deal with, patience please.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:39pm

20. "The American public has now read the bill and is furious."---Posted by Katie10 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:38pm

    When did YOU read the bill, Katie?

    Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 1:50pm

21. katie, why does it have to be bipartisan? i don't think the repugs were concerned one iota about bipartisanship while they were in control of the House and Senate as they easily passed "their" spending bills, destroyed habeus corpus, et al. what we need is a bill that is beneficial for Americans, not big pharma, the insurance industry nor any other profiteers. whether or not the bill is bipartisan is irrelevant as well as impossible, unless the dems concede to all the repug demands, b/c repugs make no concessions. they just piss and moan ...

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 1:51pm

22. And Katie10, bipartisan? HaHa, right, since when? you guys are still 28% Get it? Your just louder.

    Posted by Denise29 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:52pm

23. More fact checking from AP (posted on comcast.net)

    http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics

    /20090810/US.Health.Care.End.of.Life.Q_A/ (make sure you put the entire url together without the spaces)

    One of my favs:

    "Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

    A: No."

    Can't believe there are still some that would believe this garbage...

    Posted by thejman at 08/11/2009 @ 1:56pm

24. 1. The government is already in charge of health care -- see MEDICARE and MEDICAID and TRICARE and CHAMP/VA--it aint the best but it's by far better than the nothing so many people have. 2. Do you really want your health care in the hands of a CORPORATE BUREAUCRAT at an insurance company whose last years salaries (CEOs) averaged $11million? How is that better than carefully thought out and monitored government regulations?

    Posted by aparlier at 08/11/2009 @ 2:01pm

25. Love the humor, we need it.

    As far as healthcare reform, we need that too. Why are people upset over a government 'beaurocrat' that is answerable to the people; but are ok with a corporate one that is answerable to no one. The decisions to deny coverage are coming from corporate BEAN COUNTERS.

    Health insurance needs to return to the not for profit category. Making money off the misery of others is pathetic and needs to be stopped.

    Keep the humor coming, "do it for the troops"!

    Posted by ljwaldron at 08/11/2009 @ 2:29pm

26. Here's the Republican solution to the health care mess in America:

    1. Keep everything the way it is and let the insurance companies continue to charge outrageous fees and drop coverage for anyone they want, whenever they want. This is a capitalist country dammit and health care should be a for-profit business since it's a luxury, not a right delineated in the Constitution.

    2. Force all Americans (and Canadians, too if we can get 'em...I mean, aren't they sort of our 51st state anyway, since they leech off our health care since it is so superior to theirs?) to buy into this system; even the people who cannot afford it. Force 'em!

    3. Do not allow any illegal aliens to buy into the system. Ignore any and all illegal immigrants who might show up at a hospital needing health care; they're illegals, so they don't get American health care...let em go back home to get health care! If they die, oh well, we don't want them here anyway, because they take away jobs from hard working Americans.

    3.a. Visiting tourists who need medical care: since we don't like the socialist Europeans, or the Asians, or the Russians, Canadians, Australians, Africans, Mexians, South Americans (from any leftist countries) or people from Hawaii, they don't get medical care when they visit. Only Americans. And Alaskans.

    4. Don't euthanize grandma. Make grandma live as long as we want her to, regardless of what her desires might be.

    5. Keep your filthy socialist government hands off my Medicare!

    6. Call anyone who disagrees with us Nazis.

    7. Shout until you lose your voice and give the Black President a stinging political defeat, like we did with Clinton and his angry wife back in '93...ah, the good ol' days.

    Does that about cover it?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 2:45pm

27. It is crucial that we understand that the tactic of argument for the sake of argument is being used by republicans against health care reform. The intention is to heat up the argument factor by using whatever issue incites the most response. The issue is not important to the arguer only maintaining argument because as long as the argument is maintained at a high enough volume progress is impeded. The real agenda is to impede progress by maintaining argument. In this case the real agenda of the argument is not about health care it is about creating the image of Obama, and the democratic party defeated in the public perception as a platform for the next election cycle. In this case this tactic is evident in the use of incorrect assertions and half-truths being blown completely out of context by very vocal folks that make arguments against the health care reform legislation. Arguing with these individuals does no good for resolving any issue because it only feeds the argument furor, which is their intention. Whenever argument for the sake of argument is identified as the tactic being used it is important to question the sincerity of that argument and not engage in that argument until sincerity has been established. To do otherwise rewards argument for the sake of argument by making it a successful tactic.

    Posted by satnamgee at 08/11/2009 @ 2:51pm

28. 1) Is it true that all of the bills currently proposed would end the practice of "rescission," whereby health insurance providers refuse to treat customers who've paid their premiums simply because they've become ill?

    ************************************

    Recission is the legal remedy for fraud. If a person obtains coverage fraudulently through lying on the insurance application, the contract is recinded and the premium are returned as if the contract was never in force.

    Surely, the key to healthcare reform is not to legalize fraud.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:27pm

29. Oh, the contract isn't recinded because they got sick. They were already sick. The contract is recinded because they lied about a pre-existing condition and then claimed benefits much, much higher than thier premiums for an illness or condition they already had when they lied on the insurance application.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:31pm

30. If as a nation we do not pass reform that leads to universal health care, that will confirm we are the dumbest nation on earth. Posted by felipejs at 08/11/2009 @ 11:44am

    +++

    I think a few African and other impoverished nations have us beat, but we are catching up quickly. Certainly we have become the dumbest industrialized, modernized, "educated" nation on earth. Backward is the new American direction. (Just read some of the comments on this site if you want evidence.)

    Posted by Citizen54 at 08/11/2009 @ 3:32pm

31. To get rid of health inequality, the bills actually mandate that every American be given a pre-existing condition.

    ******************

    Please review Kurt Vonegut's short, "Harrison Bergerson" and understand he was mocking people who have a fetish over equality; he did not admire them.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:34pm

32. there is nothing wrong with recission as long as the insurance companies do not abuse it by finding any excuse to rescind an insureds policy. and that is exactly what they do

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 3:36pm

33. Details of where the stimulus went for skate parks, turtle bridges, swamp frog studies , pig stink studies ect. and mostly to the unions. All spent with our hard earned dollars is not helping.

    Posted by Katie10 at 08/11/2009 @ 1:38pm

    Really? I don't doubt some of the money went to skate parks, but to say the majority went to unions is a complete distortion. I know that most projects have to pay Davis-Bacon wages, so that they are more expensive than if they were not paid for by federal dollars, but most if not all federal projects have to pay Davis-Bacon wages.

    How do you know it is not helping? It is impossible to say if economic conditions are better or worse than they would have been without the stimulus package. My guess is that we have to be better off with billions of dollars infused into the economy. With hundreds of multimillion dollar projects being funded across the country I have to assume they are putting people to work.

    I went to recovery.gov and could not find any reference to pig stink projects or unions. So I think you are just repeating the propaganda you hear without actually doing any research of your own. My intial overview of the projects, in the west at least shows that most of the big money projects were infrastructure (roads) and at air force bases.

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/11/2009 @ 3:44pm

34. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:31pm

    so the policyholders are liars and the insurance companies are the victims? what an equally fascinating and pathetic analysis.

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 3:46pm

35. YJ it will either be a federal buearacrat or a corporate one. At least a federal one is not aiming to increase the pot of his christmas bonus, by denying coverage.

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/11/2009 @ 11:48am

    At least the corporate one can be sued into oblivious if he screws up. The government one couldn't care less if he screws up because there are no consequences to screwing up when you're a government beauracrat.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:46pm

36. so the policyholders are liars and the insurance companies are the victims? what an equally fascinating and pathetic analysis.

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 3:46pm

    Do people cheat on their taxes? Do people generally have a higher or lower opinion of insurance companies realitive to the IRS? Yet you find it hard to believe that anyone would commit insurance fraud?

    And the companies aren't the victims. The cost of fraud, like the cost of shoplifting gets passed on to other consumers. By rooting out fraud we prevent the dishonest from stealing from our customers.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:58pm

37. Hilarious! Who knew that this liberal rag actually has funny writers. Seriously though, with all the precedents being established about death planning in these health care bills, it's only a matter of time before the elderly are "culled" from the herd to reduce health costs for the rest of us.

    Posted by golperuano at 08/11/2009 @ 4:04pm

38. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:31pm

    Darin,

    Why do you hate Americans so much to call all of them, or at least all the ones whose insurance policies have been rescinded, liars?

    Nowhere in your mindset could the greed of the insurance companies enter into the equation of:

    Intake of high premiums (minus) extremely sick people who cost us a lot of money = higher profit margin?

    You're a capitalist and the above equation is taught in Capitalism 101.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 4:09pm

39. I can just see a future lawsuit:

    AP - Los Angeles

    In the matter of "ACORN vs. Gov't Death Board #17", ACORN has claimed that GDB#17 is guilty of "disparate impact" in that POC are not being represented in proportion to their overall population in the region served by GDB#17. A spokesperson said, "GDB#17 is picking way too many white folk for their services. We demand that they treat us equally!" A GDB#17 source said that they could not comment on matters under litigation, but that they were confident that they were delivering service as required by law".

    Posted by sntauri at 08/11/2009 @ 4:09pm

40. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:46pm

    I don't know what your talking about. Government agencies are sued daily. Government employess can be fired for incompetence.

    You have to be rich enough to fight in court for years to go after a corporation who can out spend you 1,000,000:1 and they will fight you as hard as they can, because if they lose they know there are multiple other lawsuits that will come after them. Good luck with that.

    Are not trial lawyers part of the problem anyways? Everytime an insurance company is sued it affects their bottom line which then affects everyone else with higher premiums.

    But the real factor is economic incentive for the corporate insurance to scew you, versus no incentive to screw you on the part of the government. The insurance company beauracrat has the potential to make more money if his coroporation is more profitable, the government worker gets paid the same no matter.

    If the government worker screws up, it is likey an honest mistake (where's the motive?), if the corporate one does it more than likely due to economic incentives or pressures to purposefully screw you.

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/11/2009 @ 4:20pm

41. Well said, be patient! With a little foam

    Obamarama sure will drive it home!

    Posted by WWW at 08/11/2009 @ 4:44pm

42. posted by CHRISTOPHER HAYES on 08/11/2009 @ 09:58am

    Hilarious!

    Posted by syfriendly at 08/11/2009 @ 4:52pm

43. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 3:58pm

    no i don't find it hard to believe that anyone would commit insurance fraud. it happens all the time. but you seem to find it hard to believe that the insurance companies would rescind a policy just for the mere fact that they don't want to pay out the benefits. are you disputing this fact?

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 4:52pm

44. Posted by golperuano at 08/11/2009 @ 4:04pm

    so how long has your head been jammed up glenn beck's ass? and have you been to the doctor yet to cure that debilitating condition? i wonder if your insurance would cover the surgery. is it a pre-existing condition?

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 4:58pm

45. I'm getting the sense that the current crop of legislators are getting a little nervous about what they're hearing back on the home front. They thought that people actually wanted socialized health care. Well guess what, they don't and they are saying so in a voice that is growing louder and louder every day.

    Despite the best effort to paint the dissenters as hired hands, the polls for Obama and his plan keep plunging. This will translate into a massacre on election day 2010, and the politicians are starting to worry. And for good reason. Americans who work hard are pretty happy with their health care even though some improvements could be made.

    However, President Obama has made a serious political mis-calculation and his message on the subject is changing every day. Maybe that's why he's on the TV 24/7. Remember when the only time we used to hear from the President was when he actually had something important to say? Or maybe when he gave the state of the union speech. This president is in love with himself and his words grow more and more tiresome every time he comes into people's living rooms. Talk about unwanted guests!

    It's time to have a serious conversation about health care reform and stop the blitz. People will be receptive to some reform but keep pushing and calling them mobs and they WILL show up at the polls and turn the tide against the democrats. People are saying that this plan is pure evil. Obama needs to read the plan.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/11/2009 @ 5:02pm

46. Intake of high premiums (minus) extremely sick people who cost us a lot of money = higher profit margin?

    You're a capitalist and the above equation is taught in Capitalism 101.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 4:09pm

    No, I'm an actuary. An actuary understands the difference between "risk" and "loss". We insure against risk of loss. If a loss has already occurred (cancer, smashed car, death, disability) there is not a risk of loss, there is a loss that has already been incurred. By committing insurance fraud, some people are successful at stealing money by making a claim for a loss and lying about when the loss occurred.

    Read the next post as well.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:13pm

47. it happens all the time. but you seem to find it hard to believe that the insurance companies would rescind a policy just for the mere fact that they don't want to pay out the benefits. are you disputing this fact?

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 4:52pm

    Yeah, I am. Because if an insurance company promised to pay if an event occurred and then renegged when it did occur, the company would get sued.

    Insurance companies sell promises. Promises to pay if an insurable event occurs. If we don't do that, if we don't live up to our promises, we won't have trust and we won't be able to sell anything.

    Now, most Americans have a better understanding of insurance than the people here. The people here are outrages that poor people don't get healthcare and since the insurance company pays for my care, obviously, there is a problem with the insurance company for not paying for the poor person's care.

    But you're wrong. The problem is that the poor can't afford the care and that is a problem for the government to address. It is not a problem with insurance. Insurance isn't a subsidy mechanism for the poor; insurance is a risk pooling mechanism for the people who can afford to manage their financial risk.

    Because you feel bad for the poor, you are being stupid. You are basically saying that poor people shouldn't have to pay premiums until after they've incurred a loss at which point they would pay a single premium and recieve benefits that are 10 or 100 times greater than the single premium.

    They shouldn't have to buy car insurance until after an accident, or home insurance until the house has burned down, or life insurance until after they are dead. Just becase the poor can't afford it, doesn't mean we should destroy the market for those who can affort it.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:21pm

48. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 4:09pm

    So, again. If you are healthy, and are truthful on your application, and you get sick, there is no incentive for the company to refuse your claim because they'll pay 10 times as much in court as the would have paid for the treatment. The yellow pages are crawling with ads for lawyers who'd kill their own mothers for a chance to sue an insurance company.

    The idea that a company has a financial incentive to deny legitimate claims...

    Wait, let me back up I'm talking about transplants and so forth. Really expensive things. If you have cancer and the company recinds your policy because they claim you lied on the application, they better have proof because we are talking $100,000s.

    Companies do have a financial incentive to nickle and dime you on small stuff, but not life or death stuff. If you just roll over, that reduces claims and if you fight, the worst thing that will happen is they'll pay you a couple of months late.

    I'll confess to having a distorted view of this because I'm in the life insurance industry. All of our claims are $100,000s or millions of dollars and we only pay once because you only die once. We don't pay monthly like prescription coverages do.

    Yeah, they nickle and dime you, but recission isn't about nickle and dime shit. They won't recind because you rack up $50 a month in depression medication, only if you claim $4000 worth of cancer drugs in your first month of coverage.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:31pm

49. Seriously though, with all the precedents being established about death planning in these health care bills, it's only a matter of time before the elderly are "culled" from the herd to reduce health costs for the rest of us.

    Posted by golperuano at 08/11/2009 @ 4:04pm

    If it was possible and if they could get away with it the insurance companies would have done it years ago.

    Oh wait... It was done. From the insurance company standpoint they got rid of dealing with the cost of the elderly when they were covered by medicare and medicaid. Oh my god!... We already have socialized medicine! The commies have won!

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/11/2009 @ 5:41pm

50. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:21pm

    "Yeah, I am. Because if an insurance company promised to pay if an event occurred and then renegged when it did occur, the company would get sued."

    right, and have you ever taken on an insurance company in a lawsuit? can you afford that?

    here are some examples of what you saying isn't happening:

    http://tinyurl.com/nmzvjk http://tinyurl.com/m8awun http://tinyurl.com/q8hxqr

    "Because you feel bad for the poor, you are being stupid. You are basically saying that poor people shouldn't have to pay premiums until after they've incurred a loss at which point they would pay a single premium and recieve benefits that are 10 or 100 times greater than the single premium.

    They shouldn't have to buy car insurance until after an accident, or home insurance until the house has burned down, or life insurance until after they are dead. Just becase the poor can't afford it, doesn't mean we should destroy the market for those who can affort it."

    what the hell are you talking about? I never said a damn thing about the poor. ok since you brought it up, fuck it, let the poor die, right? we don't have an obligation to take care of our citizens.

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 5:47pm

51. I was finally able to reconcile our views because of a problem I had with STATE FARM insurance.

    In one of our moves, one of the movers stole my wife's wedding ring. For the two months that our stuff was in storage, we weren't 100% sure it was stolen rather than just packed, but when we unpacked, it was gone.

    Well about 1 month after we moved, I called STATE FARM (who you should NEVER, EVER do business with) and told them that we sold our house and we think one of the movers stole the ring but we can't be sure until we unpack everything.

    They backdated the coverage end-date and sent a premium refund check. And when I placed my claim, they said the loss wasn't covered because it occurred after coverage terminated. They put the end of the coverage as the day before the movers were there and said it wasn't covered.

    STATE FARM FUCKED ME out of about $1000, and they got away with it because they knew it would cost me more to fly back to Georige to fight them over it than I'd get if I won.

    So don't ever buy insurance coverage from those fucking thieves at STATE FARM.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:54pm

52. right, and have you ever taken on an insurance company in a lawsuit? can you afford that?

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 5:47pm

    No, I haven't even though I should have. (please see the post above.) I would be able to afford it if it was real money because lawyers work on contingency fees, but only if we were talking about real money. But I can't afford to sue them over nickle-and-dime chicken shit claims.

    But again, recission isn't about nickle and dime chicken shit claims.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:59pm

53. Darin, that definitely sucks, but you just proved my point.

    Posted by sirhcus at 08/11/2009 @ 6:00pm

54. Insurance companies sell promises.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:21pm

    So, you're saying that the only thing that stops an insurance company from selling LIES (as in "we'll pay if you ever get sick because you've been a good premium payer for many years") is the threat of a lawsuit? From an individual? Who is dying?

    HYSTERICAL!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Wow...are you naive to the ways of modern big business or what? Evidently, you don't believe that insurance companies hire many very highly paid attorneys whose sole job it is to squash lawsuits from individuals and whose budgets run to the millions.

    And isn't it always YOUR side that says there are too many trial lawyers filing too many frivolous lawsuits? "We need tort reform!" is the mating call of Republicans.

    "Insurance companies sell promises. "

    Medical insurance companies manipulate people usually through fear of death and dying, to get them on the rolls so they can start taking their money for the promised service, knowing full well that when push comes to shove, they can then rescind the policy for some reason (who cares if it's made up? Sally the rescinder gets her annual bonus and the legal guys will make sure the case takes years to prosecute). IF the (dying) patient sues, they sick their attorneys on the poor schmuck who has the audacity to question the large mega-corporation's decisions. The schmuck, who assumed the insurance company would help when the times called for it, is left holding the bag for medical payments for uncovered treatments; he can't afford them and goes bankrupt.

    Then we wonder why the rate of individual bankruptcies skyrockets due to medical bills. Your side shows absolutely no compassion for people who aren't as lucky as you. Truly amazing.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 6:00pm

55. It's not so bad. It gives me something to bitch about. I feel like I've cost them at least $100,000 due to my bitching.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 6:04pm

56. Medical insurance companies manipulate people usually through fear of death and dying, to get them on the rolls so they can start taking their money for the promised service, knowing full well that when push comes to shove, they can then rescind the policy for some reason (who cares if it's made up?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 6:00pm

    How do you *know* this. Have you seen it? Do you know any person who works for an insurance company? Is it because Nichols tells you so? Is that what you see in the cartoons playing in your head?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 6:07pm

57. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 6:07pm

    Darin,

    Evidently, you only watch Faux news.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&page=1

    (and he's not the first to state it, either)

    So, pardon me while I go back to listening to the new DMB release in my head. I don't watch cartoons in my head, I listen to music instead.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 6:18pm

58. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 6:00pm

    One more thing:

    Only a small percentage of insurance is really private insurance. Most "private" insurance is group coverage provided for employers.

    In reality, when an insurance company nickles and dimes you, the insurance company doesn't profit. It is the employer who profits. The insurance company gets a fee to process non-major medical claims.

    Companies like GE, Walmart, Home Depot are so huge that they know their claims are going to be $100 million plus or minus $5million, so they don't bother to buy insurance from the insurance company, they just pay the company a 2% - 3% fee for processing claims and they profit when the insurance company nickles and dimes you, not the insurance company.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 6:21pm

59. Only the federal government can protect us from corporate tyranny.

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/11/2009 @ 11:48am

    Did you know Jamie Ollis, of Enron fame, is being released after serving ~5 years?

    Do you know how many tens of BILLIONS of Wall St. bonuses were honored, with public money, instead of letting those bonus agreements be wiped out through bankruptcies?

    Do you know where there is NO "corporate tyranny" and the Gubbers' protection is perfect? Don't need to look far, just south of FL!

    Posted by Happy at 08/11/2009 @ 8:08pm

60. Why are people upset over a government 'beaurocrat' that is answerable to the people...

    Posted by ljwaldron at 08/11/2009 @ 2:29pm

    How has them "government 'beaurocrat'" dealt with simple questions of where and in what amounts the TARP money went? The visitors' log to the Black House?

    Ever heard of being stonewalled by "government 'beaurocrat'"?

    Posted by Happy at 08/11/2009 @ 8:19pm

61. Darin the Troll

    I am not a big fan of the corporate world & hold only two insurances, auto & fire.

    Let me just say in defense of State Farm, that in the state I live in, no other major company offers car insurance even REMOTELY close to the low rates of State Farm.

    There may be one or two homegrown outfits that are competitive, but they have exclusionary policies on dropping of coverage & getting reinstatement & other stumbling blocks.

    So don't slam a company that offers about the only affordable coverage available for poor people. Besides that, they sponsor the entire evenings classical music programming on public radio.

    There. About the only endorsement of the corporate world I'll ever post on this site.

    And doesn't it stand to reason that a greedhead like the troll would slam a decent company.

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/11/2009 @ 8:37pm

62. Any person still alive who believes that the profit motive is appropriate for health care is likely to believe that Blackwater is a good substitute for the American military and selling our highway system to China would be good business. Profit and health care are an oxymoron. Thanks Chris

    Posted by julien38 at 08/11/2009 @ 9:21pm

63. So don't ever buy insurance coverage from those fucking thieves at STATE FARM.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:54pm

    But I can't afford to sue them over nickle-and-dime chicken shit claims.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/11/2009 @ 5:59pm

    I've been a State Farm customer since the late `70s, right out of college.

    My apartment burned to the ground in a huge fire (Woodway Sq. apt. fire of 1979) that took down almost 500 units. I had renters' insurance.....bought to insure my stereo system and almost 300 records. Wasn't much, $7k coverage...and they paid every dime up to the limits; though I did have to itemize everything, I mean everything I could remember down to a dozen underwear.

    Since then, they have been my carrier for home, auto, umbrella rental liability and even a measely $100k whole life policy bought when my oldest was born.

    Every time I had a claim, they have been more than fair. They have made plenty of money off of me but I know they will be there when I need them.

    In your case, I don't see why you didn't go after the moving co. even though it's just a "nickle-and-dime chicken shit claim."

    Posted by Happy at 08/11/2009 @ 9:22pm

64. So Troll, you packed your wife's wedding ring & sent it with the movers? What the hell did your wife take with her in the carry- on..her microwave?

    Good god..

    Posted by Sorelish at 08/11/2009 @ 9:23pm

65. I'm opening a chain of highway storefronts that offer inexpensive do it yourself surgery kits with a how to DVD included. Save big dollars at Suit Yourself. Opening soon in your neighborhood. All major credit cards accepted.

    Posted by J. Daley at 08/11/2009 @ 10:12pm

66. Oh, OK but just one more!

    "...the market-place, the eager love of gain, Whose aim is vanity, and whose end is pain" Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 19th century ,

    Posted by J. Daley at 08/11/2009 @ 10:23pm

67. Wow. Talk about throwing the bullshit around.... The Nation's site has all the wingnut crazies that took over AlterNet, huh?

    Well, anyway. Here's a true story.

    My mom, now 95, in precarious health with skin cancer, heart condition and associated health problems normal in a 95-year old, just called. She had another operation to remove a melanoma under her eye, which necessitated some very finicky surgery in a renowned university clinic. She lives in a small town in a resort area, the clinic is 50 miles away, she gave back her driver's license when she turned eighty, so she takes a taxi to the clinic for operations and follow-ups. Her convalescence will take about four months, which she is spending at her home. A care giver comes by twice a day to change bandages and do a little cooking and cleaning. Mom's expenses for clinic, surgery, taxi, caregiver? Zero. Nada. Not a cent. Free.

    Mom moved to Germany from Pasadena, CA, a number of decades ago. She has the public health care plan all residents of Germany have. As she is retired, with a widow's pension paid by the government there, her health plan is included (not charged extra).

    When I ask her if she ever regretted leaving California, she just laughs. Great sense of humor, for a ninety-five-year-0ld

    Socialized medicine? Government run health care? christ, if only we had some.

    Posted by peterjkraus at 08/11/2009 @ 10:34pm

68. Posted by peterjkraus at 08/11/2009 @ 10:34pm

    Here's another story: My friend's brother-in-law, a Dutch citizen, had a stroke at a young age. Needed extensive rehab. Couldn't get it in the Netherlands. Got it in the US thru Medicaid (his wife was a US citizen). It went well. Be careful what you wish for. European socialized medicine makes choices about what services they will offer. If they don't offer it, tough shit.

    Posted by twillie at 08/11/2009 @ 10:53pm

69. hey twillie

    you ARE aware that Medicaid is simply another version of the "European socialized medicine" that you purport to be critical of? I mean, your story kind of defeats its own point, since it appears that Medicaid saved the day, in this case, for your brother-in-law.

    Glad his story had a happy ending. It appears to be another good reason for us start taking universal coverage seriously in this country, so that other people may also have the happy ending that he had.

    Posted by canaro71 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:01am

70. sorry, I meant to say "your friend's brother in law"

    Posted by canaro71 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:02am

71. sorry, I meant to say "your friend's brother in law"

    Posted by canaro71 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:02am |

    A friend of my friends brother in laws sister said she has an uncle who's second wife's nephew went to the Netherlands and broke his leg and they ate him..

    Posted by chaoszen at 08/12/2009 @ 01:17am

72. Katie claims, "The American public has now read the bill and is furious." Would those be the same people who believe THE bill establishes death panels? And which bill has them so infuriated? There are currently two, one in the House and one in the Senate, and if my recollections of high school civics (and the refresher lessons I got while watching "Schoolhouse Rock" when my daughter was young) serve me, the two must be reconciled before any sensible debate can be held on the merits or shortcomings of THE bill. I'm not totally sold on either proposal but I can say, unequivocally and honestly, that thus far both exceed any GOP counter-proposals, all of which apparently were written in disappearing ink.

    BTW, I enjoyed the column Chris. Your satire has eased my anger towards the ignorant. Now don't be surprised tomorrow when some of your "answers" are added to THE bill which "everyone has read." Will it be Palin, Beck, or Limbaugh who will first declare that THE bill "would legally bar surgeons from performing surgery until a panel of twelve gay illegal immigrant government bureaucrats unanimously signed off on the procedure?" My bet is on Palin, but Lou Dobbs can't be counted out as a dark horse.

    Posted by TennMom at 08/12/2009 @ 02:10am

73. you ARE aware that Medicaid is simply another version of the "European socialized medicine" that you purport to be critical of?

    Posted by canaro71 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:01am

    No, you couldn't be more wrong.

    I am more familar with the particulars of England, but understand that england is representative.

    In England, the NHS (National Health Service) is a government "corporation" that owns all of the healthcare equipment (MRIs, Ambulences, hospitals) and employes all of the personnel (Doctors, nurses, dentists). Because the government dictates the price they ignore market forces and pay what they want and the best doctors leave (my doctor is English). England imports many foreign doctors who work cheaper than the domestic help becuase Englan pays for their training.

    Several (meaning two or three) of these doctors are from the ME and have been involed with terrorism plots that have murdered random citizens.

    In the US, virtually all equipment and healthcare employers are private (for-proit or non-profit are both private. The VA is the most recognizable govt entity.)

    Medicaid is a cash subisdy program for the poor. If you are too poor to pay for your own care or insurance, Medicaid purchases services for you.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 07:03am

74. Posted by Happy at 08/11/2009 @ 9:22pm

    I've had Mask on ignore for less than a week and now it seems you are trying to take his place.

    We started talking about "recission", which is one of the Left's healthcare boogey men. Supposedly, according to the Left, as soon as you contract a life threatening illness, your health insurance company is going to refuse to cover you and let you die so that they can have bigger bonuses.

    I tried to correct this misconception by explaining recission is connected to fraud. If you pay one $100 premium and then expect to recoup $4000 worth of cancer drugs in the first month, the company is going to recind the contract based on your fraudulent answers on you application.

    I was called a fool for not know companies steal from you.

    This was the artful change of subject. I'm talking about recision and those decision are based on $100,000 treatments, not some chicken shit depression medication. Real money vs. nickle and dime stuff. To illustrate the difference between real money and nickle and dime I mentioned my experience with those theiving bastards at State Farm.

    I was having flashbacks regarding the charge of "backpedaling". "Oh so you admit companies rip you off." Yeah, of course they do. When you buy a $19,500 car and then have to pay an extra $600 for floor mats you are getting riped off. When you buy a $2500 flat screen TV and then have to pay $90 for a 3 foot HDMI cable to hook it up you are getting ripped off.

    None of this has anything to do with "recission". If you paid $19,500 for a car and they told you it's your car, you just can't drive it anywhere, that'd generate a law suit (just like an improper recission). If they only give you three floor mats, your going to get pissed and drive away.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 07:25am

75. "Do you know how many tens of BILLIONS of Wall St. bonuses were honored, with public money, instead of letting those bonus agreements be wiped out through bankruptcies?"----Posted by Happy at 08/11/2009 @ 8:08pm

    Don't you just love it when HAPP tears into those fat cats on Wall Street?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 08:03am

76. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 07:25am

    Can't stand the heat....Ignore the kitchen?

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 08:04am

77. Posted by Happy at 08/11/2009 @ 9:22pm

    I've had Mask on ignore for less than a week and now it seems you are trying to take his place.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 07:25am

    Huh? Got out of bed on the wrong side this morning?

    I merely came to the defense of my insurer, State Farm, because you said "...don't ever buy insurance coverage from those fucking thieves at STATE FARM." due to the loss/theft of a $1,000 wedding ring and its refusal to pay.

    I'm not going back to reread the details...but it was my impression that you'd intoned $1,000 ring = chicken-shit claim in the post that led to my comment. And you didn't answer as to why it shouldn't be the moving co. you went after?

    BTW, when you go thru your extensive and overly patient explanation of "recission" (and most other matters I'm edumycated on) to dim wits, I blow past them.....pardon if somewhere in your verbage, there was some mixing of lost ring w/recission.

    Posted by Happy at 08/12/2009 @ 08:53am

78. Posted by YourJomamma at 08/11/2009 @ 11:17am

    Actually the sound being heard around the country is..."we don't want the govt in charge of our health care, just don't touch medicare!!".

    ------

    In the US, virtually all equipment and healthcare employers are private (for-proit or non-profit are both private. The VA is the most recognizable govt entity.) -DARIN

    and that is what we would have under a "public option". I have seen or heard nothing that would have the govt take over the delivery of care, just the payments. That could save this country billions of dollars a year.

    -----------

    Posted by TennMom at 08/12/2009 @ 02:10am

    scary, but quite possible!

    It would be something like Cheney leaking classified information to news outlets, then citing the news outlets as sources.

    Then whining and crying about the MSM leaking classified information. waaa...waaa..waaa.

    Akin to the Birthers mentioned above (don't touch medicare!) or those that gave up freedoms to Bush, but don't want Obama to take....well they don't know what he might take, but dammit they know that nigga is up to something!!

    "Where da white women at!"

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 09:06am

79. Posted by golperuano at 08/11/2009 @ 4:04pm

    I thought you wanted to get to heaven?

    Do you know that lying is a sin? If so, why do you do it?

    Or are you just too damn stupid to think for yourself?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 09:10am

80. FUN FACTS TO KNOW & TELL ABOUT GLENN BECK (That I ascertained in about 5 minutes with wikipedia).

    1. He was born within a day of Saint Sarah Palin in February 1964 and in an adjacent state to boot (WA to the Saint's ID).

    2. He is a former hardcore drunk.

    3. His bro' committed suicide.

    4. His mom committed suicide too.

    Can't overstate the matter. Very, very troubled and troubling background here, whole lotta symptoms that are now being beamed out to a vast audience.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/12/2009 @ 09:17am

81. "Do you know how many tens of BILLIONS of Wall St. bonuses were honored, with public money, instead of letting those bonus agreements be wiped out through bankruptcies?"----Posted by Happy at 08/11/2009 @ 8:08pm

    Do you know what would have happened if 4 of the largest 20 banking firms in the country went belly up? I have asked this question a dozen times here, and not a single con has answered it. Telling, I think.

    I agree in principle, propping up the banks is generally bad juju. However, practicality should win out over ideology. Reading the rants of someone that relies on others to make his money for him, via stocks etc, who is upset that the feds propped up his system...well...too rich for words really.

    And then, to realize that this same person GLADLY spent a trillion to prop up a corrupt govt in Iraq because he was afraid of a paper tiger? Makes me throw up.

    Using pontiFLogic, I am going to declare that Obama has won the war on the recession. Clearly the stock market gains and new unemployment figures show that Obamas economic Surge has stemmed the tide of economic terrorism. In 10-15 years all will be back to normal and we will have President Obama, the Greatest president EVER, to thank for it. Thanks to pontificus for showing me the way.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 09:24am

82. TOWN HALL INITIFADA: Another Von Brunn in the makin'?

    SALON.com: "One of Tuesday's big mysteries was the motivation behind anti-Obama protester William Kostric, the man who brought a loaded gun to the town hall meeting and carried a sign referencing Thomas Jefferson's famous credo, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

    On Tuesday afternoon MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked Kostric why he carried "a God-damned gun" to a meeting with the president, "given the violent history of this country with regard to presidents and assassinations," & whether he supported the Birther movement. Kostric insisted his intentions were peaceful, and that he's not affiliated with Birther groups.

    But at least one of those statements doesn't seem to be true. A right-wing activist named "William Kostric," who's left a lot of footprints around the Web, is listed as a "team member" of the Arizona chapter of We the People, the far-right group best known for joining a lawsuit challenging Obama's right to be president based on his not being a U.S. citizen...

    And on his MySpace page (h/t Lavender Newswire), Kostric also lists as one of his heroes Robert Schultz, the anti-tax activist & We the People founder who spent a ton of his own money on ads promoting the Birther movement. At a press conference in December, Schultz told reporters: "This nation is headed towards a vortex of a Constitutional crisis..."

    Kostric's MySpace profile also lists among his heroes Randy Weaver, the white supremacist and right-wing activist...

    If Kostric really believes "...a body count is what's required for change" in the case of cops moving against drug dealers, it would be interesting to know what other causes he thinks a body count might hasten"

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/12/2009 @ 09:26am

83. I'm not going back to reread the details...but it was my impression that you'd intoned $1,000 ring = chicken-shit claim in the post that led to my comment. And you didn't answer as to why it shouldn't be the moving co. you went after?

    Posted by Happy at 08/12/2009 @ 08:53am

    It was a $7,000 ring. I did get $3500 from the moving company. Of the $3500 remaining, I had a $1000 jewelry limit on the homeowners. I sure am glad I didn't pay those fucking thieves at State Farm to ensure the full value of the ring. Given that they backdated my policy termination to the day before the theft it would have pissed me off even more.

    First rule of customer service: A person who received good service tells 3 people. A person who received bad service tells 12 people.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 10:00am

84. Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/12/2009 @ 09:26am

    We know the response to terrorism the cons expect....round em up, send em to Romania or Syria. Who would object? The ACLU? HA!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 10:02am

85. and that is what we would have under a "public option".

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 09:06am

    Hey Crabman

    Yeah, a public option makes a lot of sense. Much more sense than single payer. The public option doesn't force the 90% of Americans who currently get as much care as they want to submit to less in order to pay for the 10% (most of whom can't, but some of whom just won't) pay for insurance on their own. As if there is a fixed-size healthcare pie and if the "greedy" Americans stop stealing from the poor everything would be hunky dory.

    If Americans volutarily choose to spend 17% of GDP on healthcare, let 'em. You don't have to reduce the 17% in order to muster the political will to fund the poor who are unable to afford care.

    This is why I keep saying single payer isn't an option. This is why President Obama said a "Candian-style" system (single payer) won't work here.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 10:12am

86. Any person still alive who believes that the profit motive is appropriate for health care is likely to believe that Blackwater is a good substitute for the American military and selling our highway system to China would be good business. Profit and health care are an oxymoron. Thanks Chris

    Posted by julien38 at 08/11/2009 @ 9:21pm

    Who appointed you to decide whether people can earn a profit or not? Why do you hate Doctors so much that you believe they should not be rewarded for their work?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:15am

87. Dear Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll:

    The problem with your argument re: contracts shows us that what is technically legal is not always moral. What you say is true enough - that when one enters into a contract with an insurance company, one signs a contract that puts limits on the obligations of the insurer. Legal, but ultimately, is that moral?

    What if the patient signed on in good faith? There are plenty of medical conditions that take years to become critical, and if someone newly signing into the system has one without knowing it because they haven't had access to preventive or diagnostic care, what then? Is it moral to offer a "product" that presumably will deliver care to the patient, yet build in so many technicalities that this can't happen?

    Say a twenty-five year old woman signs on, not knowing she is pregnant. By the time the condition becomes apparent, systemic loopholes mean she could be denied prenatal or obstetrical care. What choices would she have? The likelihood of abortion increases if she can't afford thousands of dollars for hospital delivery. Say she opts for adoption, but denial of prenatal care means the baby is born prematurely or sick. What happens then? What about someone who doesn't know about the brain tumor that's been growing for years? What about a woman with osteoporosis? What about high blood pressure, the silent killer? What about diabetes? What about any of the other conditions that can lurk for years undetected in the human body? Is it moral to have health care system committed to the denial of care, in which the bottom line is really the money, not the health of the patient?

    And please don't try to cite Vonnegut - you don't seem to grasp the satire in the creation of dystopia - and you spell the name incorrectly

    Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/12/2009 @ 10:29am

88. I have to admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude over this this whole affair. Last spring, The Nation was encouraging it's supporters to show at meetings an make a ruckus. How DARE Max Backus remove single payer protesters from his committee meeting? Go to your Rep and make a scene!

    And they did, and they scared people into thinking that sane people were considering single payer. And now the astroturf is under the other foot.

    I went to Taco Bell twice last week so I heard Rush twice. I almost felt bad. President Obama is trying to pass a public option program, but thanks to The Nation's efforts, there's confusion between public option and single payer.

    Rush played a clip where the Rep holding the townhall meeting said, "Nobody's talking about the government taking over healthcare." The hall erupted in boos and jeers, because, The Nation is talking about single payer. And they sent enough astro-turf activists to be disruptive at townhall meetings that now people are afraid that the government is going to take over healthcare, just like The Nation wants and they are creating enough backlash that the public option is now in jeopary.

    Democrats we fighting over a Medicare Prescription Drug plan for years and years because it was good for getting elected. And while they were posturing, President Bush passed a prescritpion drug plan that is cheaper than anything the Dems were talking about, relies heavily on private insurance companies, is tremendously popular, and is another peice of evidence that "private solutions work better than government solutions".

    Is The Nation going to be the sabotage that dooms President Obama to failure only to have a subsequent Republican enact a more business friendly reform?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 10:30am

89. Can't overstate the matter. Very, very troubled and troubling background here, whole lotta symptoms that are now being beamed out to a vast audience.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 08/12/2009 @ 09:17am

    Many agree with you..and I would put you in the very same category as Glenn...a little emotionally bent and intellectualy..disabled....but you do have an acidic tongue that comes forth when you have nothing to say..similar to Glenn..I think you two are from the same family tree...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 08/12/2009 @ 10:44am

90. "I went to Taco Bell twice last week so I heard Rush twice....

    Rush played a clip where..."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 10:30am

    Good thing Darin has me on Ignore so only EVERYBODY ELSE can see this--

    "I don't listen to Rush, Savage or Levin, who are entertainers."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/15/2009 @ 07:17am

    Minnesota Judges: Franken Received Highest Number of Votes posted by John Nichols on 04/13/2009 @ 9:40pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 10:52am

91. Who appointed you to decide whether people can earn a profit or not? Why do you hate Doctors so much that you believe they should not be rewarded for their work?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:15am

    Just think how much more doctor could make if insurance companise were not mandating to them how much they can charge? Insurance companies already tell doctors what they will and will not pay for different proceedures. Why do you think it takes a doctor 15 to 20 years to pay off their school loans?

    Who is telling the insurance companies how much they can make? Anti why do you hate Americans so much that you don't care who dies from illness or goes bankrupt from corporate insurance sabotage?

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/12/2009 @ 11:26am

92. Stick to editorials. humor is not your strength.

    Posted by eugenius57 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:36am

93. Who is telling the insurance companies how much they can make? Anti why do you hate Americans so much that you don't care who dies from illness or goes bankrupt from corporate insurance sabotage?

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/12/2009 @ 11:26am |

    Julien38 and others here who state that companies (which includes doctors) should not make a profit.

    Most people don't die from insurance companies. In fact there are very few recorded incidents of this. Nor do most people go bankrupt from "corporate insurance sabotage". This is all leftist hyperbole.

    People go bankrupt because of life. In many instances because they choose material gain, fast food, smoking, and other lifestyle choices over living right and living within their means.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:52am

94. Why aren't doctors paid by the hour, instead of by procedure?

    That would bring down the cost of medical care in this country drastically....but no one's talking about it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29berenson.html?_r=1

    ...anyone wanna instruct me on the use of the "tinyurl?"

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:55am

95. People go bankrupt because of life. In many instances because they choose material gain, fast food, smoking, and other lifestyle choices over living right and living within their means.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:52am

    Sounds to me like you hate America?

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/12/2009 @ 12:04pm

96. ...anyone wanna instruct me on the use of the "tinyurl?"

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 11:55am

    go to http://tinyurl.com

    you paste in the link and it creates a shortcut

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:24pm

97. Thanks, Larry. Now you've made it easier for me to refute you with facts as often as necessary. ;-)

    I promise not to go all judibrowni on you (although I agree with her activism 100%).

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 12:54pm

98. People go bankrupt because of life. In many instances because they choose material gain, fast food, smoking, and other lifestyle choices over living right and living within their means.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 11:52am

    Sounds to me like you hate America?

    Posted by Extraneous at 08/12/2009 @ 12:04pm

    Not at all. I welcome people having the freedom to make wrong lifestyle choices. Just don't ask me to pay for them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

99. [Question 1] Legal, but ultimately, is that moral?

    ...

    [Question 2] Say a twenty-five year old woman signs on, not knowing she is pregnant. By the time the condition becomes apparent, systemic loopholes mean she could be denied prenatal or obstetrical care.

    Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/12/2009 @ 10:29am

    Question one, is that moral? Absolutely. What if she can't clean her toliots, is the insurance company morally obligated to perform that service? What if she can't afford piano lessons for her 5-year old, is the insurance company morally obligated to perform that service? What if her car needs a brake job? Is the health insurance company morally obligated to provide that service?

    Health insurance companies provide a service. They administer health claims on a fee-for-service plan for giant companies that can afford to self-insure, and they serve as a risk pooling mechanism for people who don't work for giant companies.

    Just because they provide a service to the 90% of people who can afford it does not mean they are obligated to subsidize the poor who cannot afford it. That is the government's responsiblity.

    Question 2: Why is a 24-year old girl without insurance having sex? She could become pregnant. She could contract AIDS. She could contract other STDs. If it's because she can't afford insurance, that's the governments problem. If she can and is choosing to force other people to subsidize her regarding the risk of pregnancy, I think she should go to jail for stealing.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 1:30pm

100. Sorry Nation and Mr. Hayes, I am not laughing. I am trying to find factual information regarding the complex health care reform. Only the Kaiser Family Foundation website seems to provide this...all 44 pages of complex charts!

     Most of the media talks only about the lies being told, or the lies themseves. I'd like to know the facts, perhaps distilled to reasonable digestable amounts, with some links to more info. I do not need or want , lies, superificial stories, propaganda, agenda padding, or cute satire.

     Maybe I'm an old stick in the mud; but right now I want as much clarity as can be brought to the subject. The letter from Drs. Hammelstein, Woolhandler, et al in the Aug17/24th print edition was concise and informative, yet aptly opinionated.

     Patiently waiting and exploring, Michael J. Carlon, MD Palm Springs, CA

     Posted by carlmj1 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:41pm

101. Who appointed you to decide whether people can earn a profit or not? Why do you hate Doctors so much that you believe they should not be rewarded for their work?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:15a

     Reads like a man in favor of ob/gyb's being able to practice medicine as they and their female patients choose.

     who'da thunk it?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 2:18pm

102. Health insurance companies provide a service.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 1:30pm

     I thought Health insurance companies only make promises...

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 2:21pm

103. DARIN, do you know that in the real world insurance companies practice rescission due to technicalities? Sometimes dates are input incorrectly, sometimes a form is left blank unintentionally, sometimes words are misspelled. In a contract, all reasons to rescind.

     Imagine, using a mere technicality to deny justice!

     Who'da thunk it?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 2:23pm

104. Posted by carlmj1 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:41pm

     Try this, if you have not already.

     http://www.pnhp.org/

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 2:28pm

105. Not at all. I welcome people having the freedom to make wrong lifestyle choices. Just don't ask me to pay for them.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

     Just curious...who are YOU to decide what is or is not a "wrong lifestyle choice" in a country in which you, of all people, demand personal choice above all other things as an example of the freedom you desire. (Except of course, where personal choice gets in the way of your religious beliefs, then you believe people should do as you say.)

     You and I disagree on most everything, from what is considered moral, to ethics, to politics, to personal choices, to environmental beliefs, to corporatism, to war and peace, etc., etc., etc. Yet we are equal citizens in this country and your opinion about any of those things is worth no more than mine. So, why so judgmental and upon what basis do you make your judgments?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 2:32pm

106. Take a gander at this DARIN:

     "The examiners reviewed files drawn from the category of Closed Rescinded and Denied Claims for the period January 1, 2004, through February 28, 2006, commonly referred to as the "review period". The examiners reviewed a total of 93 BC Life & Health claim files. The examiners cited 67 claim handling violations of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations and/or California Insurance Code Section 790.03 within the scope of this report"

     http://tinyurl.com/oewgof

     67 violations in 93 reviewed cases...that is almost Sotomayorian in scope!

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 2:36pm

107. So, why so judgmental and upon what basis do you make your judgments?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 2:32pm

     He knows gOd's will.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 2:40pm

108. Not at all. I welcome people having the freedom to make wrong lifestyle choices. Just don't ask me to pay for them.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:24pm

     Just curious...who are YOU to decide what is or is not a "wrong lifestyle choice" in a country in which you, of all people, demand personal choice above all other things as an example of the freedom you desire.

     You and I disagree on most everything, from what is considered moral, to ethics, to politics, to personal choices, to environmental beliefs, to corporatism, to war and peace, etc., etc., etc. Yet we are equal citizens in this country and your opinion about any of those things is worth no more than mine. So, why so judgmental and upon what basis do you make your judgments?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 2:32pm

     1st of all, it wasn't a judgment. Saying that people are free to make whatever lifestyle choices they want is not judging. I simply said that I should not pay for those choices.

     If someone smokes and gets cancer, should I have to pay for their treatment because they made that choice?

     How about if they live on McDonalds, eating 10-12 Big Macs a day. Should I have to pay for their diabetes and kidney dialysis?

     you are guilty here of exhibiting the worst of leftist traits. That of assuming the worst about someone like myself who advocates freedom.

     Take the environment. I would wager I have done as much if not more to advance the environment as you or anyone who posts here. I simply don't want the govt dictating environmental policy. Like most leftists, you assume conservatives are anti-environment if we don't advocate big Federal govt as the solution.

     Morals-nothing in common? you like murder, rape, theft?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

109. If you want honest answers to your health care questions then go to the horse,s mouth ask your feiendly nurse. As a health care worker I can tell you that what is being proposed is already being done but will be done cheaper. If you dont have a living will and a medical power of attonery you will get exactly what a bueracrat whats to give you. At 64 y/o male with heart diease the only reaso n i work is for health insurance and thats it without it the county or state will decide what they will pay for and you have no recourse. Get with it folks sit in an ER or hospital waiting room and ask people with poor health what will work for them not for you and others in goo health a job and health insurance.

     Posted by redhot3 at 08/12/2009 @ 4:30pm

110. 67 violations in 93 reviewed cases...that is almost Sotomayorian in scope!

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 2:36pm

     Hey Crabman,

     How big was the fine in relation to the claims?

     I take it you are referring to the triennial exam report. The way these things work is that every three years the State performs an exam. In the 26-month period examined, Blue Cross (BC) processed millions and millions of claims. They probably denied more that 93 claims. So in the sample of 93, they found 67 "violations". To gauge the seriousness, tell me how big the fine was. Anything less than $100,000 is nuisance value. Companies spend millions to complete the exams. If they can get the examiner to go away for $100,000 that's a win. Fines of $25,000 - $50,000 are routine. You've got tens of thousands of employees processing millions upon million of claim forms, licensing thousands of agents, and filing quarterly financial statements that contain millions of numbers.

     Imagine if you had to be subjected to a trienial driver's review where the examiner went through a computer log of every time you rolled through a stop sign at 1 mph, every time you forgot to use your turn signal, every time you exceeded the posted speed limit. Imagine you were assess a $10 fine for all the violatins of the last 3 years, would you consider yourself the epitome of evil for incurring that fine?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 6:11pm

111. Hey Crabman,

     Of the 67 case

     for 29 they were too slow to pay. To comply with the law they hired an additional 16 people bringing the total to 21.

     for 27 they were too slow to investigate. To comply they hired an additional 16 people.

     So 56 of the 67 "violations" are related to being understaffed, which was corrected.

     In four of the case the company disagrees with the examiner. The contract states:

     "Rescission of Membership" "I have provided a complete history of material information that will be considered in the acceptance or denial of this application. I understand that if I intentionally provided incomplete or false material information Blue Cross may revoke my coverage. This means Blue Cross will cancel membership as if it never existed. Also, after approval for membership, if material information is discovered by Blue Cross that was not provided to the Plan prior to the effective date of the policy, Blue Cross may deny coverage."

     The company believe that if they demonstrate the insured had knowledge of a material condition, that is prima facia evidence of "intent".

     The state does not believe providing an answer at odds with medical knowledge is prima facia evidence of "intent". Basically, the state is saying that is is possible a person forgot their doctor told them they had lung cancer.

     In 2 instances, the "violation" is that the company lost some paperwork.

     In one instance, the company made a mistake in the notification and was forced to reinstate the policy.

     Ooooo evil stuff here.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 6:31pm

112. Hi there Mr. antisocialist:

     You write: Take the environment. I would wager I have done as much if not more to advance the environment as you or anyone who posts here. I simply don't want the govt dictating environmental policy. Like most leftists, you assume conservatives are anti-environment if we don't advocate big Federal govt as the solution.

     If the government doesn't set environmental policy and enforce it, uh, who will? You may personally be very conscientious, but who will stop those who are not?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/12/2009 @ 6:33pm

113. Read the paragraph on "recission of membership above".

     Before I came here, the authors were trying to peddle the lie that recission is what insurance companies do when you get sick.

     No, recission is what companies do when you commit fraud by lying on an insurance application.

     Big difference there.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/12/2009 @ 6:34pm

114. If the government doesn't set environmental policy and enforce it, uh, who will? You may personally be very conscientious, but who will stop those who are not?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/12/2009 @ 6:33pm

     The market. If people want "green" vehicles, those companies that produce them will prosper over those who don't. If you want a community that practices a larger "green" lifestyle, then live in that community.

     But it is simply illogical as is often charged by many on the left to suggest that corporations don't want clean air and water to breath and drink. Don't you think that the people in these corporations have families? Don't you think that many are active in outdoors activities?

     We have seat belt laws, but many people don't use them. We have littering laws, but they are hardly followed. Why, because you cannot completely legislate behavior and much of what environmentalists wish is behavioral.

     Hybrid car sales should have skyrocketed in the past 2 years. But they didn't. In fact they are still hardly moving. Honda even dropped it's Accord Hybrid because of a lack of sales.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 7:36pm

115. www.cnsnews.com/public/checker.aspx?rsrcID=49323

     "Congress has allowed Social Security and Medicare to accumulate an unfunded liability of $101 trillion."

     One can only imagine what kind of an unfunded liability Congress will let Obamacare accumulate.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 8:19pm

116. So goes the empire. When the ruling elites can only see to their own benefit the nation is left barren and leaderless. If this medical cost problem is not solved it will ruin the nation. If costs remain on their present course health care will become unaffordable for tens of millions in the coming years. Forget death panels it will be death by banana republic. All because our elected officials were screwing up, incapable of doing the right thing.

     Posted by CAH2k at 08/13/2009 @ 12:11am

117. DARIN, do you know that in the real world insurance companies practice rescission due to technicalities? Sometimes dates are input incorrectly, sometimes a form is left blank unintentionally, sometimes words are misspelled. In a contract, all reasons to rescind.

     Imagine, using a mere technicality to deny justice!

     Who'da thunk it?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2009 @ 2:23pm

     Hey Crabman

     Do you know of actual cases or is all of you information on the subject collected from "scary stories around the campfire" conversations.

     You cited 67 cases. 56 were related to being slow (they were understaffed when the new law went into effect.) 2 cases were related to lost paper work (a technicality if there ever was one.)

     And one case, the insured lied on the application and the company recinded the contract, but they sent the wrong notification letter so because of a technicality, the company was forced to reinstate the contract and insure someone who committed fruad.

     So using your link, I've got a concrete example of a company being forced to cover someone who committed fraud because of a technicality. All you have are boogey man-type stories of people being denied coverage because of a technicality.

     what are you going to believe, the undeniable facts or your bigoted opinions?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 06:41am

118. Hey Crabman

     Just to be clear by "bigoted" I obviously mean anti-corporate bigotry, not racial bigotry. I feel the need to say this explicitly because too many people automatically assume that when someone uses the word "bigotry" it is meant to imply "racial bigotry".

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 06:43am

119. Wow, Michael Barone really nails it on why Democrats have screwed the pooch on healthcare reform

     http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/13/ when_liberal_leaders_confront_a_centrist_nation_97873.html

     There are more conservatives than Republicans and more Democrats than liberals. That's one of the asymmetries between the parties that helps to explain the particular political spot we're in. The numbers are fairly clear. In the 2008 exit poll, 34 percent of voters described themselves as conservatives and 32 percent as Republicans; 39 percent described themselves as Democrats but only 22 percent as liberals...

     But the Democrats have a problem here. The party's leadership currently tilts heavily to the liberal side. Barack Obama is from the university community of Hyde Park in Chicago. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco, and important House committee chairmen are from similar "gentry urban" locales...

     In these circumstances, the Republicans have been winning the battle for public opinion and, more importantly, for public enthusiasm...

     When a politician tries to stop debate, it's a sign he's losing the argument. Obama seems to have let the House Democrats overplay their hand. He ignored the fact that in our system neither party ever has all the advantages.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 07:30am

120. The title from Karl Rove says it all:

     Obama and the Permanent Campaign

     Turning critics into enemies isn't presidential

     http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052970203863204574346512956227346.html

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 07:48am

121. Rather than trying to surreptitiously create a moral equivalence I will be straight forward and forthright and ask if there is a moral equivalence.

     So, what is the moral difference between Ann Coulter whipping her supporters into a frenzy with lies about "death panels" and writers at The Nation whipping their supporters into a frenzy with lies about "rescission"?

     Am I correct in my conjecture that the writers her are as morraly bankrupt as Ann Coulter? What is the difference?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 07:56am

122. Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/12/2009 @ 6:33pm

     You must be new. See Larry/antisoc is so conservative he wants to go back to the "good ol' days" of the 1890s with not only no regulation over industry...things like safe coal mines...

     but allow 10 year olds to work in them.

     Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 08:06am

123. "The title from Karl Rove says it all:

     Obama and the Permanent Campaign "---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 07:48am

     Is there a word for something so BEYOND ironic and so BEYOND hypocritical....that we can use on Karl Rove lecturing people on a President being in 'permanent campaign" mode???!?!???

     Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 08:07am

124. "All you have are boogey man-type stories of people being denied coverage because of a technicality. "DARIN

     But you were against "technicalities" two days ago, now you defend them?

     "No, recission is what companies do when you commit fraud by lying on an insurance application. " DARIN

     Or...

     if the company has too few staff, is lazy, or "loses" paperwork.

     Thanks for making my points for me. I wonder if you would be so forgiving if the evil United States government (under rule other than your beloved George "I never lied" bush) made the same "mistakes" due to underfunding? Or would that be a form of bigotry of government?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 08:29am

125. what are you going to believe, the undeniable facts or your bigoted opinions?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 06:41am

     February 13, 2009 3:10 PM

     It seems like just yesterday I posted about the settlement reached by healthcare insurance giant, Anthem Blue Cross, in a California case brought by 2,300 policyholders for wrongful rescission of policies. Oh, it was yesterday? But today, Health Net announced that it too had settled a wrongful rescission case. According to the Los Angeles Times, Health Net, one of the nation's largest healthcare insurance companies, will pay $2 million in fines to the Los Angeles City Attorney's office, will restore coverage to 800 former policy holders, and will pay for health care bills incurred by the policy holders after they were wrongfully denied. The total estimated cost of the settlement is as much as $14 million.

     It seems like I have already written or heard of this story before. Oh, I have. In September of 2008 I posted on another settlement reached by Health Net with 926 of its policy holders that were wrongfully rescinded. This time the settlement was for $13 million, and was supposed to be accompanied by a moratorium on policy rescisions and cooperation with regulatory agencies.

     Oh, and Health Net was also found liable for $9 million by an arbitration judge after it wrongfully rescinded a policy of a Gardena hair salon owner when she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The woman had to suspend chemotherapy because her coverage was dropped.

     http://tinyurl.com/cwssne

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 08:36am

126. oh waht the hey, I will post this paragraph too...because clearly DARIN is right and I am wrong...

     "What is truly amazing is the fact that the basis for rescission is always a claim of misreporting of prior medical history. Such misrepresentations, if true, would be tantamount to fraud and the carrier should not be bound to afford coverage in those intances. Yet, in the 1000s of cases that we are now hearing about, it does not appear that even one claim of "insurance fraud" could be supported."

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 08:40am

127. More facts on European healthcare

     In treating almost every cancer, America apparently does better than Britain, sometimes appreciably so. According to a study in Lancet Oncology last year, 91.9 per cent of American men with prostate cancer were still alive after five years, compared with only 51.1per cent in Britain.

     Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article -1206149/STEPHEN-GLOVER-I-deeply-resent- Americans-sneering-health-service--- thats-truth-hurts.html#ixzz0O4R7HvVV

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 08:46am

128. But you were against "technicalities" two days ago, now you defend them?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 08:29am

     What? Two days ago I objected to someone saying all laws were "technical" so everything is a technicality. I offered the example of a misspelled address as an example of the difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law.

     As to defending technicalities I most certainly did not! You claimed companies use techicalities. I cited a case where the company was forced to cover someone who committed fraud because of a techincality. I hardly concider that a defense.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 08:51am

129. "No, recission is what companies do when you commit fraud by lying on an insurance application. " DARIN

     Or...

     if the company has too few staff, is lazy, or "loses" paperwork.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 08:29am

     Did you read the trienial report you linked to?

     All of the rescisions were because of misstatements on the applications. The State of CA cited the company for technicalities like lost paperwork, delay in investigating because of being understaffed, etc. The CA DOI did not accuse them of being "lazy".

     You just accused me of defending technicalites when what I did was the opposite. The CA DOI didn't say there weren't blatent lies on the applications (spirit of the law), they said the company was guiltly of technicalities, like misplaced paperwork or taking too long to respond.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 08:56am

130. "...51-year old Patsy Bates, a hairdresser from Gardena California. Bates was in the middle of chemotherapy for breast cancer when her insurer, HealthNet, rescinded her insurance policy. The company claimed that she had provided inaccurate information on her application. She sued the company, but an arbitration meeting revealed that HealthNet rewarded its employees for finding ways to rescind policies - a practice that is against the law. The insurer ended up paying Bates over $9 million for wrongful rescission and additional fines to the Department of Managed Health Care for lying to investigators about the existence of its "rewards" program."

     but, we know that DARIN would defend the right of government employees to lie about their duties, tasks and involvement in situations. He says things like "cheney MEANT to say"... or other such rot.

     Take his pal Karl Rove, mentioned above. Turd Blossom said he was NOT involved in the firing of US attorneys...

     ABC news...

     "New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. "

     And, even though Darin defended the firing of those attorneys, we know that the DoJ itself said the practice violated policy, and probably law.

     So, from what I can tell, it is OK with Darin if insurance companies lie, commit fraud and deny coverage...it is OK if government employees that he likes lie and obfuscate. Is that the way of it Darin?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 08:57am

131. Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 08:36am

     So you have an example of an insurer losing 3 court cases for millions of dollars.

     Does that prove "they all do it?"

     A couple of weeks ago Dem Representative Willim Jefferson was convicted of bribery. Does that prove all Democrat Reps are guilty of taking bribes?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:02am

132. So the evidence we've looked at contains two types of information. You've got three court cases where the insurer lost and we have one Trienial exam report the state cited 67 cases, where all but one or two were minor techincal violations, mostly becase they were understaffed and have since corrected the problem.

     The only difference is that not every company get sued. Every single insurance company submits to a trienial exam and the state writes' a report exactly like the one above.

     I say the trienial report is more representative of all companies than the result of three court cases.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:06am

133. Insurance Company Tactics Add to Americans' Financial Hardships

     "[T]he bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don't pay claims…They'll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die."

     -- Mary Beth Senkewicz, former senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

     Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse

     ttp://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice

     /hs.xsl/604.htm

     More bigotry.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:06am

134. The company claimed that she had provided inaccurate information on her application. She sued the company, but an arbitration meeting revealed that HealthNet rewarded its employees for finding ways to rescind policies - a practice that is against the law.

     ****************************

     Hey crabman, let me get this straight. She lied on her application, thereby committing fruad. And nobody disputes the fact that she committeed fraud by lying on her application.

     However, because the State of CA has a law against rewarding employees for finding fraud, she gets away with committing fraud on a "technicality.

     And you think that's a good thing.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:12am

135. "[T]he bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don't pay claims…They'll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die."

     -- Mary Beth Senkewicz, former senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:06am

     The NAIC is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. They are the group charged with regulating insurance companies. Is it possibe that Ms Senkewicz has a skewed perspective regarding what goes on at insurance companies rather than first hand knowledge?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:16am

136. .....the State of CA has a law against rewarding employees for finding fraud,....

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:12am

     That can't possibly be true, is it?

     If it is, sure helps to explain why CA is in such a mess and probably where the country will end up adapting the longer Magic and his Chicago hoodlums are in charge!

     Posted by Happy at 08/13/2009 @ 09:18am

137. No, Darin. You have stated that rescissions happen because consumers lie.

     I have showed you that as well as that reason, which I have never denied, insurance companies ALSO lie, they rescind because claims are going to cost profits and they commit crimes to save money. I have found you examples of these activities. Now you want to say that I can only find "a few" examples. Do you honestly think that every time a company denies payment unlawfully it is caught? Can you say it with a straight face?

     Your "side" wants to say that govt run care would be horribly run, because you can find a few examples of "rationing" in Canada. But the same does not apply to the private sector?

     Cherry picking ?

     You always have an excuse for your side Darin. You nit pick at tiny little things to defend your people, then make grandiose statements about the other side. Nothing new there.

     Again, would you excuse a govt run program if 67/93 cases somebody said "Sorry, we lost your paperwork" or"Sorry, we are underfunded"?

     Somehow I don't think so.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:20am

138. So here's what happen in the Salon case. A woman found out she had brest cancer. So she applied for insurance an lied about having breast cancer. A worker discovered that she lied about having breast cancer.

     But because the person who discover her lie had a compensation structure where they recieved a base salary and an annual bonus where the companies' profitability is factored (say, half of the bonus) and another half is based on how many cases of fraud are detected, this structure violates a CA law.

     So the person who lied and committed fraud is rewarded and the company the detected fraud in the wrong way gets punished.

     And you think that is a good thing.

     Rather than asking why she didn't have insurance before finding out she had breast cancer, we just blame the company for being heartless.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:24am

139. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:12am

     "The company claimed that she had provided inaccurate information on her application. "

     Key words..."the company claimed..."

     Whereas the review panel FOUND that the company violated the law.

     I see you would rather deny someone treatment and allow them to pass on (die) than believe a citizen over an insurance bureaucrat. Imagine taking the side of a faceless bureaucrat over a citizen!! How very Christian of you.

     Peace, gotta go make money to pay medical bills....

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:26am

140. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:12am

     That can't possibly be true, is it?

     If it is, sure helps to explain why CA is in such a mess and probably where the country will end up adapting the longer Magic and his Chicago hoodlums are in charge!

     Posted by Happy at 08/13/2009 @ 09:18am

     Yes it's true.

     Disability income isn't my specialty. But I am familiar with it. The cost of disability income insurance in California is twice as high as the average of the other 49 states.

     Rampant insurance fraud in CA is the reason the rates are twice as high. Many companies don't sell DI in CA. The ones that do are effectively forces to make the people in the other 49 states subsidize the rampant fraud culture of CA.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:28am

141. That is correct Darin, I would rather see someone live through cancer than see someone make a bonus in their check.

     And apparently you would rather see the bonus paid and the patient die.

     WWJD?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:29am

142. How very Christian of you.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:26am

     Where in the article did anyone dispute the claim that she lied?

     This has nothing to do with being Christian. Insurance isn't charity. It is a risk pooling service that costs money.

     She was subject to a risk and she irresponsbly didn't protect herself from the risk until it was too late. That's not the insurance company's fault. That doesn't make it okay for her to commit insurance fraud.

     The solution is to force people to buy insurance if they can and subsidize the ones who can't. Demonizing insurance companies for providing a service to 90% of the population isn't part of the solution.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:35am

143. That is correct Darin, I would rather see someone live through cancer than see someone make a bonus in their check.

     And apparently you would rather see the bonus paid and the patient die.

     WWJD?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:29am

     I would rather see people forced to behave like adults. That means protecting themselve from risk or financial ruin. We force people to buy car insurance. We force people to buy homeowners insurance to protect their mortgage, why don't we force people to buy health insurance rather than letting them be irresponsible and forcing the responble one to pay for the irresponsible ones.

     I'm sorry she got breast cancer. That doesn't change the fact that she sould have bought insurance before she was diagnosed. She made a conscious decision to self insure and she lost.

     I don't want to live in a society were we are encourage irresponsible behavior by subsidizing it.

     (Again, if she couldn't afford the coverage Medicaid should have provided it.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 09:40am

144. Is it okay to steal grapes from the grocery store?

     If you feed your kid one grape every time you go to the grocery store, is that a crime?

     Well technically, yes, but it's so small that it's immaterial and nobody cares.

     But what if you start bringing 6 kids and give each of them a grape? What if you bring the 500 kids from your kid's school and give each of them a grape? What if you give a grape to each of the 13 million illegal aliens that here illegally?

     Yeah, then it beomes material.

     You can cheer the woman who committed insurance fraud and got away with it on a technicality if you want to. That doesn't make insurance fraud right.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 10:00am

145. You make heros out of the people who get away with committing insurance fraud.

     Is that really all that different than the people who cheered when southern jurys refused to convict people of lynching.

     The rationalization is the same: Well, technically insurance fraud/lynching is against the law, but you know how those insurance companies/niggers are. They've got it comin' to 'em.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 10:48am

146. Are we off the subject? Whatever the poor lady with cancer did, right or wrong, we still need health care reform in a big way. However, I would rather see Congress slow down and consider all the possibilities before rushing through a bill just for the sake of change. We need more discussion and maybe town meetings (but throw out the nutters that yell and drown out speakers). Obama is attempting to do the right thing, but the "just say no" advocates are busy shouting down all ideas of change rather than offering any real ideas. Who is foolish enough to say our present system is fair or workable for all, while we are allowing corporate profit and greed of insurance and pharmaceutical companies to control our lives?

     Maybe if we get out of these wars, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, et al, we can put all that money that is making the defense contractors rich into healthcare for all. We need to get out now.

     Posted by georgiagiraffe at 08/13/2009 @ 10:54am

147. I have showed you that as well as that reason, which I have never denied, insurance companies ALSO lie, they rescind because claims are going to cost profits and they commit crimes to save money. Again, would you excuse a govt run program if 67/93 cases somebody said "Sorry, we lost your paperwork" or"Sorry, we are underfunded"?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2009 @ 09:20am

     The instance you cite wasn't an example of the company lying to deny coverage. They lied about the compensation structure because it was a violation of state law. The fact remains the woman lied and committed insurance fraud. She did not dispute this. However, because of a quirky CA law, the company was guilty of a technical violation and force to provide coverage.

     Do you get that? The compensation structure paid bonuses for finding fraud. Technically that was illegal. Does that mean every single person who didn't buy insurance until after they were diagnosed with cancer and lied on the application about it deserves free money?

     I don't know of any other state in the contry that makes it illegal to pay someone a bonus for finding fraud. But because it's CA committing fraud and getting away with it make you a hero?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 11:07am

148. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 10:48am

     Is there anything more insane than saying if you don't like corporations "it's the same as" being a racist?!?!?!?!?!??

     Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 11:15am

149. the biggest hypocrisy emanating from the right wing is this:

     on the one hand, they fear a "giant leap towards socialized medicine" with so-called 'obamacare', and yet they get angry when obama makes back-room deals with insurance companies (which would presume their mistrust of insurance companies).

     so on the one hand they mistrust obama, and his attempts to lower healthcare costs, and on the other, distrust the insurance companies.

     so which is it, folks?

     do you want obama to take on the insurance companies and move towards a single payer? or do you want obama to work with insurance companies to lower costs?

     these townhall protests against "socialized medicine" thus are completely crazy.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 12:12pm

150. a real sign of fascism would be government working with corporations (or vice-versa) to make sure that corporations continue to ration care, raise costs, and keep americans poor, stupid and powerless.

     a single payer system would transform us out of that situation....

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 12:15pm

151. so which is it, folks?

     do you want obama to take on the insurance companies and move towards a single payer? or do you want obama to work with insurance companies to lower costs?

     these townhall protests against "socialized medicine" thus are completely crazy.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 12:12pm

     Neither, the Federal govt has no business being involved in healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 12:58pm

152. antisocialist,

     the federal government is already involved in providing healthcare to millions of americans, as well as social security. it is also deeply involved in the subsidization of (genetically modified) farming, roads, and schools. it also funds the (largest and most unnecessary) military.

     thus, the federal government is already (apparently) extremely unconstitutional.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:20pm

153. so on the one hand they mistrust obama, and his attempts to lower healthcare costs,

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 12:12pm

     What has President Obama proposed that would lower costs?

     Right now 90% of Americans received the best care in the world. The remaining 10% get only 30% to 50% of the care they need. Bringing that 10% up to 100% percent of the care they need will increase costs.

     So, is he going to cut doctors and nurses salaries? Is he going to mandate less equipment? Is he going to outlaw expensive drugs? Or is he going to effectively outlaw expensive procedures that aren't cost effective? President Obama gave as an example the hip replacement his grandmother received weeks before her death.

     I say that decisions is Grama's provided she bears the financial consequences of the dicision.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 1:20pm

154. "Right now 90% of Americans received the best care in the world. "

     (quote of the week)

     "Is he going to outlaw expensive drugs? "

     he's going to outlaw CHEAP drugs, that's part of the "bargain" he's offering to the insurance companies.

     and btw, i said "attempts" to lower costs.

     i want a single payer system. i don't want anything else but that.

     if the insurance companies, or in fact ANY entity with a profit or shareholder-burdened motive, is involved in healthcare, then we will NEVER have lower costs. ever.

     i have no idea what he's going to do to lower costs. and obviously, i'm angry about it.

     btw, only an american would say "best in the world".

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:24pm

155. Yo Darin: No one would dispute that entering into a contract in bad faith is wrong; the problem is a system where people are so desperate that they might have to lie in an attempt to save their lives.

     Another problem is that many policies are designed to minimize claims and that financial incentives are given to workers who save the company money by denying benefits and rescinding policies. While rooting out insurance fraud is good, using the same system to minimize care is bad - you can't compare the complexities of human health to, say, a lost wedding ring. People should feel free to get the preventative care they need - not terrified about finding a "pre-existing condition" that will end coverage.

     From the recent post by Katha Pollitt at this site: "I heard a 59-year-old nurse named Robin Batin testify in the most heart-rending way before the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations, chaired by Representative Bart Stupak. When she developed invasive breast cancer, her insurance company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, rescinded her coverage because of a pre-existing condition--dermatitis--even though her dermatologist called to say it was acne, not, as the company claimed, a precancerous condition. Stupak confronted the heads of Assurant Health, UnitedHealth and WellPoint with the fact that there are some 1,400 conditions that can be used to cancel a policy, most of them so minor and obscure that the executives had never heard of them. Between 2003 and 2007, the three companies saved $300 million by rescinding at least 19,776 policies. . . . The Congressmen were shocked--they had no idea. "

     Wouldn't it be more efficient to create a system in which "pre-existing condition" and "rescission" and paying bean-counters to ferret out fraud didn't exist?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

156. the federal government is already involved in providing healthcare to millions of americans, as well as social security. it is also deeply involved in the subsidization of (genetically modified) farming, roads, and schools. it also funds the (largest and most unnecessary) military.

     thus, the federal government is already (apparently) extremely unconstitutional.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:20pm

     The military and federal highways are constitutional per Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution and there is nothing socialist about them. the govt contracts out the work of building and maintaining the highways and support for the military. If the govt did all of it you might have an argument.

     I'm against subsidies for farmers and corporations.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

157. btw, only an american would say "best in the world".

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:24pm

     No, I think if you ask all the kings from the ME who fly to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN for their heart and cancer treatments, they'd tell you best in the world as well.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

158. everyone knows that these townhall "protests" are full of ignorant people. they don't even realize what they're protesting. and i don't even wanna get into the overt racism and paranoia.

     a substantial number of the people at these things are seniors, and as such, are likely to be receiving social security and/or medicare.

     so they are essentially protesting what they already have, and could probably use more of.

     how crazy is that?

     only in america do people come out in droves to protest what tom tomorrow brilliant called "the terrifying spectre of universal healthcare" (as opposed to, say, two disastrous invasions and occupations of countries that were never a threat to national security; tax cuts for millionaires; torture regimes; warrantless wiretapping, etc, etc).

     only in america do people (literally) freak out over the possibility of the government picking up the tab for healthcare. they would rather have private companies, and their fat CEOs with armies of bureacrats in tow, ready to deny care.

     only in america would the pathetic media "report" that "obamacare" is "alarming" millions of americans for doing what it ostensibly isn't (becoming socialistic)......only in america would the media not even report what SOCIALISM ACTUALLY MEANS.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:52pm

159. "No, I think if you ask all the kings from the ME who fly to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN for their heart and cancer treatments, they'd tell you best in the world as well."

     darin's debate strategy: find 2-3 of the richest people on the planet, and find where they get their heart surgeries, to prove that single payer systems aren't worthy, and why the USA is #1.

     go darin! yeah darin! go darin! yeah darin!

     (moron)

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:54pm

160. ok, let's ask the saudi arabian family where they get their healthcare. forget the 47 million americans who currently don't have anything.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:56pm

161. the problem is a system where people are so desperate that they might have to lie in an attempt to save their lives.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

     I agree. A system where people are allowed to be irresponsible and not purchase insurance before they get sick is a problem.

     We need to make it a crime to be a "free rider"

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 1:59pm

162. btw, only an american would say "best in the world".

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:24pm

     How are we supposed to respond? As Nigerians, or Russians, or some other country of your choice?

     We are Americans.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 2:00pm

163. People should feel free to get the preventative care they need

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

     I'd go further here: I'd require or at least pressure people to get preventive care.

     In the book "Predictable Irrational" the author talks about how procrastination is a form of irrational behavior. He suggested that if we design health policies where by you pay an extra $100 but get it back if you go to your routine check ups we'd be designing a system to promotes greater health.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 2:06pm

164. "You make heros out of the people who get away with committing insurance fraud."

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 10:48am

     If only all rescissions were about fraud. <sigh>

     July 27, 2009

     "...The hearings received little press coverage outside the Los Angeles Times and Public Radio International's This American Life.) In one comic highlight, Don Hamm, the chief executive of Assurant Health, was unable to define lymphadenopathy and other terms that appeared on his company's own enrollment questionnaire. The committee found that during the previous five years, three health insurers--Assurant Health, WellPoint, and Golden Rule--had saved more than $300 million by rescinding nearly 20,000 policies based on omissions policyholders made in filling out enrollment forms. Asked (in this season of reform-minded industry concessions) whether they would pledge to stop rescissions except in cases of intentional fraud, the chief executives of all three companies said that they would not. "

     http://tinyurl.com/ltvkyv

     Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2009 @ 2:22pm

165. only in america do people (literally) freak out over the possibility of the government picking up the tab for healthcare.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 1:52pm

     Darla, there is no free healthcare, there is only healthcare paid by other people.

     Now you realize that your lifestyle is very, very different from the lifestyle most Americans choose. Near as I can tell, you are chronically unemployed. You live in a small house or apartment, rarely bathe, and grow just enough herbs to sell for food and smoke the rest yourself.

     I'd guess you generate $10,000 - $15,000 of economic activity per year and you spend 100% on food, clothing, vibrator batteries, and rolling papers.

     The average 60-year old spends $5,000 to $10,000 on medical care. If you fall and break your hip, and have to spend a week in the hospital, you'll generate a $50,000 bill, or all you money you made in the past 4 years ignoring the fact that you have to pay for food, clothing, vibrator batteries and rolling papers.

     If you get lung cancer because marjuana has 18 times more carcinogens than tobacco, you'll need a $250,000 lung transplant. That's more money than you'll make in you entire lifetime.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 2:22pm

166. Dear Darin:

     You agree that a system that would provide incentives for people to get preventive care early - before their health got bad - would be far far cheaper and better. The system we have now by and large has disincentives to do that. Co-pays and deductibles, exclusions, pre-existing conditions - being in the business, you obviously know that these are the legal, contractual mechanisms with which insurance companies recoup costs and minimize their exposure to risk. But they have no place in a system where patients should be able to go to the doctor and find out what's wrong. Those mechanisms needlessly complicate the system and get in the way of the doctor-patient relationship.

     What if we could just get rid of them?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 2:29pm

167. A literary aside, for Darin:

     "At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

     "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

     "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

     "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

     "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

     "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

     "Both very busy, sir."

     "Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

     "Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

     "Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

     "You wish to be anonymous?"

     "I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

     "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

     "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 2:37pm

168. The system we have now by and large has disincentives to do that. Co-pays and deductibles, exclusions, pre-existing conditions - being in the business, you obviously know that these are the legal, contractual mechanisms with which insurance companies recoup costs and minimize their exposure to risk.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 2:29pm

     Companies don't employ co-pays and decuctibles as a source of revenue, they are in place to make sure people don't waste resources becuase the feel like they've already paid for it.

     It would be much, much more efficent to collect a slightly higher premium than it is to collect a lower premium but also have co-pays and deductibles.

     Say you have your wisdom teeth out and the doctor writes a prescription for pain medication. If it's free, 99% of people will fill it and perhaps 20% will waste it by never taking a pill. If there is a nominal co-pay, maybe only 80% fill it because the don't need it.

     Deductibles are similar. This is probably too indepth, but most of what insurance pays for ins't really insurable. You can't write an insurance policy on how much gas you use because most people can accurately predict how much gas they will use in the next year. If one creates a "gas" insurance plan, what it really is, is a prepaid service contract that encourages waste. If the unknown amount is highly predictable and subject to very little variablity, there really isn't "risk" to be insured

     Most american families will have about $1000 in care per year; some will have $250,000. Major medical is insurance. Prepaying teeth cleaning and doctor check ups isn't insurance. (Even though it's paid by "insurance")

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 2:42pm

169. Co-pays and deductibles became much more popular under managed care because health care costs were inflating 15% a year when CPI was running 3%.

     This is the problem with having insurance tied to employers. Third party payer systems are tremendously inefficient because the financial consequences of decisons are not experienced by the decision makers.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 2:49pm

170. Final question to the people who want single payer.

     Do you want single payer because insurance companies are evil?

     Or are insurance companies evil because you want single payer?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 2:50pm

171. 1st of all, it wasn't a judgment. Saying that people are free to make whatever lifestyle choices they want is not judging. I simply said that I should not pay for those choices.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

     Not to pick nits, but you said, "wrong" lifestyle choices in your initial post. That's judging. You have placed a moral quality to it: i.e., wrong.

     "If someone smokes and gets cancer, should I have to pay for their treatment because they made that choice?

     How about if they live on McDonalds, eating 10-12 Big Macs a day. Should I have to pay for their diabetes and kidney dialysis?"

     If you paid into the insurance system (like I do), then you would already know that you would already be paying for those treatments through higher premiums. That's one reason I know it's a broken system.

     "you are guilty here of exhibiting the worst of leftist traits. That of assuming the worst about someone like myself who advocates freedom."

     There you go judging me again ("worst"). I do not assume the worst of you. You seem a thoughtful, if bigoted, slightly racist, Bush/Cheney-loving, religiously dogmatic and completely inflexible kind of guy. However, your posts are all about freedom for yourself and those who believe as you do, but for anyone who does not believe as you do, then you don't care about THEIR freedoms at all. That is the height of hypocrisy.

     It is that hypocrisy (as with many so called conservatives) that I have issue with. I mean, one man recently stood up at a town hall and said to "keep the government out of Medicaid!" That statement is ignorance at best and hypocrisy at worst and reflects the official Republican Party line on the matter, because they all know you can't touch Medicaid with the Boomers getting older.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/13/2009 @ 3:04pm

172. Darin -

     So co-pays and deductibles are there to "prevent waste" but the fact remains that they also serve as a disincentive for people on a tight budget to get care or fill prescriptions.

     What's more - here you have the insurance company using a mechanism to affect patient behavior - and this is something that should be between doctor and patient.

     Now it's true we're going to have to control the costs of any system and to try to make it as efficient as possible, but I just don't see how this system is better.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 3:12pm

173. Quoting Darin: This is the problem with having insurance tied to employers. Third party payer systems are tremendously inefficient because the financial consequences of decisions are not experienced by the decision makers.

     Can you explain what you mean?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 3:21pm

174. Quoting Darin: Final question to the people who want single payer. Do you want single payer because insurance companies are evil? Or are insurance companies evil because you want single payer?

     Oh Darin, please don't go simplistic on me now . . . .

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 3:24pm

175. ". the govt contracts out the work of building and maintaining the highway"

     key words: "contracts out"

     the same scenario would exist under single payer. there is no "socialist takeover". the government merely "contracts out" the work to doctors and hospitals.

     you goto the hospital, get the tests done, and the doc bills the government.

     same thing with roads, military, nearly everything.

     the post office is one of the few institutions actually "run" by the government.

     the government wouldn't "run" healthcare.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 4:02pm

176. "Darla, there is no free healthcare, there is only healthcare paid by other people. "

     who said it was free? not me.

     "Do you want single payer because insurance companies are evil? "

     lovely phrasing of that question.

     how about "i want single payer because it saves everyone money, is sustainable, moral, ethical, is more transparent and regulated, etc, etc" oh, and it appears to function better based on the empirical data.

     Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2009 @ 4:06pm

177. Can you explain what you mean?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 3:21pm

     A third-party payer system is where some entity other than the consumer pays the cost for the benefit of the consumer.

     Public education is a famous example of a third party payer system that isn't tremendously inefficient. The county government pays for public schools through property taxes and for the benefit of the consumers, the kids.

     College is semi-third party payer. Generally it's the kids' parrent coupled with grant programs so that the consumer, the student, often times pays only a small fraction of the cost of a college degree. Here we see some inefficency because college inflation has been double digit for a decade or more, just like healthcare inflation.

     With healthcare, the employer buys what we call insurance for the employee and his or her family. If I got to the doctor every time I have an ear ache or the flu, I do not experience the full cost of the visit. If my shoulder hurts and the doctor says, "What the hell, let's get an MRI just so we can rule out torn rotator cuff even though I'm sure that's not it." If you had to pay the $400 cost of an MRI, would that be your first choice rather than "take to aspirn and call me in the morning"?

     If your copay is $20, does it matter to you whether you get the $21 generic or the $350 name brand medication? Not when a third party is paying the difference. (In fact, in "Predictably Irrational" the author quotes a number of studie that show a $3 asprin treats pain better than the same asprin that costs 10¢)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 4:26pm

178. Just to show you how insensitive people are too the price of medicine. My mom is a pharmacy tech. She has some medications that only cost $4 for the month, but if someone presents their insurance card, she has to charge them $20.

     All people have to do is ask how much it costs and she'll tell them $4 without insurance and $20 with it. Virtually no one ever asks.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 4:31pm

179. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/13/2009 @ 3:04pm

     This post certainly shows why you are having such difficulty with me. You are guilty of such faulty assumptions and ignoring my lengthy documented evidence that counter your assertions.

     Bigoted? Against whom?

     Slightly racist? I have a wife who is Hispanic/Black mix and 3 sons who are the same. Most of my extended family are either Hispanic, black, or mixed. I have pastored 3 churches that were mostly people of color.

     Completely inflexible? inflexible=incapable of change, unadaptable. I live my life with flexibility, I have relocated to meet changes in life. I have adapted to homelessness and then recovery. I have lived among the poorest of the poor in the world. I have had to adapt to military service injuries and disabling injuries from accidents when doctors said my life would be physically restricted. You seem to know little about flexibility and adaptation.

     Freedom-Show me one post where I have ever suggested that anyone have less freedom than I do. I want everyone to enjoy the same freedoms I enjoy. In fact, it seems I want it for others more than you do. I fought and my children have fought, and I hope my grandchildren will fight to give freedom for others.

     Because some one at a Town Hall meeting made a stupid statement, you conclude that I and all Republicans are hypocrites. Provide evidence that this is the official Republican Party line...you can't because it's not true. That just makes you someone who leaps to conclusions without any evidence and a liar. I'd say that speaks ill of you, not me.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 4:35pm

180. "Just to show you how insensitive people are too the price of medicine. My mom is a pharmacy tech. She has some medications that only cost $4 for the month, but if someone presents their insurance card, she has to charge them $20.

     All people have to do is ask how much it costs and she'll tell them $4 without insurance and $20 with it. Virtually no one ever asks."

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 4:31pm

     Is there a company policy that prevents your mom from just telling people they can save money? My pharmacy has one of those "club plans" and I'm frequently told when either my insurance or their discount will make a difference in price.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2009 @ 4:50pm

181. I mean, one man recently stood up at a town hall and said to "keep the government out of Medicaid!" That statement is ignorance at best and hypocrisy at worst and reflects the official Republican Party line on the matter, because they all know you can't touch Medicaid with the Boomers getting older.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/13/2009 @ 3:04pm

     This might not be as dumb as you think. But first to address your typo.

     Medicare is the insurance program for all elderly Americans over age 65.

     Medicaid is the anti-poverty program that provides medical insurance to the poor at a free or greatly reduced cost.

     Both of these insurance programs are funded by the federal government (Medicaid is adminstered by states, but the majority of funding is federal.)

     Here the government just pays the healthcare providers in private practice, they do not employ the healthcare providers.

     Suppose the VA hospital system were greatly exapanded such that Medicare and Medicaid were abolished, but the elderly and the poor could get care at any VA institution for free. (Obviously this wouldn't work because VA are only in big cities.)

     The same people would still get care. The federal government would still be paying for it. The only difference is that the doctors and nurses providing the care are government employees instead of privately employed.

     This is what it means to keep the government out of my Medicare.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 4:58pm

182. Posted by julien38 at 08/11/2009 @ 9:21pm

     Who appointed you to decide whether people can earn a profit or not? Why do you hate Doctors so much that you believe they should not be rewarded for their work?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 10:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

     careful there, julien.

     you're entering one of Larry's most bestest favorite vectors of activity: blowing away unarmed civilians with YOUR fu***n' tax dollars, aka, Blackwater.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/13/2009 @ 5:02pm

183. Is there a company policy that prevents your mom from just telling people they can save money?

     Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2009 @ 4:50pm

     Yes.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 5:10pm

184. Actually it sounds like an operational plan for the public option. A splendid piece of reporting Mr. Hays. I always knew TN was wired into the Obama White House. ;)

     Posted by BMarks at 08/13/2009 @ 5:16pm

185. "Yes."

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 5:10pm

     Wow! If this is a major chain, would you mind telling me which one? I'd like to make sure they never see any of my money due to their lack of customer service.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2009 @ 5:20pm

186. Dear Darin: Some employees are lucky enough to get fully paid health coverage as part of their employment package; however, I know an awful lot of people who belong to a group (through their employer) but must pay the premiums themselves, and I know a lot of people who are self-employed who pay the premiums for individual coverage themselves. So, these folks pay the entire premium AND have to pay the co-pays and deductibles and whatnot.

     I find myself in this position, and I speak for myself and many others when I tell you that we are finding it ever more difficult to act in the responsible manner you describe and absorb double-digit percentage increases each year in the premiums - and by the way my employer has reduced the benefit package to try to keep a lid on those premium increases. Every year we get less value for more money.

     It's not that I haven't tried to find a more affordable package; I found one maybe 15% less expensive with less coverage and a higher deductible - but even though it would be the same insurance company that has covered me for ten years, I'd still have to wait eighteen months for certain conditions to be covered.

     Getting down to a level of coverage that would actually be affordable would - in the event of a truly catastrophic injury or illness - expose me to what would in effect be an "irresponsible" level of risk.

     So what's the answer, Darin? Will you look upon me with disdain if I join the irresponsible ranks of the uncovered and just save the money, in hopes that someday I will be able to send my kid to college and somehow retire?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 5:54pm

187. Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 2:29pm

     We already have cheap preventative care. The biggest threats to the health of Americans has been due to obesity and the complications of diabetes and heart disease which often follow.

     The best preventative care is eating right and exercise. Remember the old saying "an apple a day keeps the doctor away". It remains true. To eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables will keep you much healthier. And I recommend that people should grow their own as much as possible. They will reduce their food costs, use less gasoline, be outdoors more, and be happier.

     Also, most chain drug stores and places like Sams Club have free blood pressure devices available. Every year in most communities, there are free basic exams available.

     Seeing a doctor to "find out what's wrong" as you stated is not preventative care. It's after the fact.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 6:03pm

188. Hi there antisocialist:

     Forgive my miswording - I should have said "find out if there is anything wrong" - as in a yearly checkup or office visit.

     Many of the things you advocate are admirable - eating right and exercise, to name two. But they don't add up to real prevention.

     What if everyone had access to a primary care physician/family doctor who could advocate a healthy lifestyle as part of the program? A doctor with whom the patient could develop a relationship, leading to a more accurate and timely diagnosis, should anything start to go wrong? You're not going to have people getting that from a once-a-year free test or screening. And some people avoid those screenings - because if there is something found that's wrong - Boom! - there's a pre-existing condition and not a chance of getting coverage. Doesn't make any sense, I know, but there you have it.

     Or consider this scenario: Single mom has no insurance and her child has a sore throat. Mom doesn't have $65 for an office visit and is loathe to sit in the ER or the local health clinic for five hours or more. Junior's throat is not too bad, so mom keeps junior home for a day and then sends him back to school, not realizing it wasn't just a little cold, but strep throat. The nasty bacteria advance in junior's body, blossoming into scarlet fever. Eventually junior comes down with rheumatic fever and is debilitated for life, whereas if he'd been able to see a practitioner at the outset and gotten a culture and a little antibiotic, the whole thing would had been nipped in the bud. And he wouldn't have spread it to five other kids in his class, having been sent to school when he was still contagious.

     Ounce of prevention, pound of cure. You can't cure everything just by eating healthy.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 6:34pm

189. "The biggest threats to the health of Americans has been due to obesity and the complications of diabetes and heart disease which often follow. "

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 6:03pm

     This is not directed at Anti, since I think he doesn't believe in corporate welfare anymore than he believes in individual welfare. But, thinking about health care costs and the things that greatly affect those costs, I'd like some conservatives here to consider the following:

     "Each year cigarette smoking or exposure to tobacco smoke were responsible for:

     * A total of at least 443,000 premature deaths * 776 infant deaths (as a result of smoking during pregnancy) * 736 deaths due to smoking-attributable residential fires * 49,400 deaths from lung cancer or heart disease caused by secondhand smoke. * Approximately 5.1 million years of potential life lost * $96.8 billion in productivity losses"

     -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses --- United States, 2000--2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008

     "Smoking kills more people in the United States each year than car accidents, alcohol, AIDS, murders, illegal drugs and suicides combined."

     -Sources: (AIDS) HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1998; (Alcohol) McGinnis MJ, Foege WH. Review: Actual Causes of Death in the United States. JAMA 1993; 270:2207-12; (Motor Vehicle) National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, 1998; (Homicide, Suicide) NCHS, vital statistics, 1997; (Drug Induced) NCHS, vital statistics, 1996; (Smoking) SAMMEC, 1995

     Tobacco Subsidies in United States totaled $530,488,022 million from 1995-2006.

     Let's talk about redistribution of income vs. "free market" principles again.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2009 @ 6:45pm

190. FLaim on!

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 6:54pm

191. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 4:58pm

     How again does one keep the government out of a government run program?

     I am a simpleton...please use small words.

     By the way, to you and the rest of the Republicans, from a purely social perspective, what's wrong with having social medicine, anyway? Don't we already have some sort of social contract with each other anyway, based on the Constitution and our local and state laws? What's wrong with taking care of the poor and needy and paying for it through tax dollars? What's wrong with using our combined tax dollars to create a healthy society? You prefer the unhealthy society we currently have, or would you rather mandate that everyone exercise, eat right and buy insurance? Wouldn't that be considered a loss of freedom in your eyes...the government "telling you what to do?"

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/13/2009 @ 7:00pm

192. Soooo....

     The holier-than-thou pharmaceutical companies are funding a multimillion dollar ad that's pro obamacare...

     Lets see Katrina spin that into a;

     "No, no, no, the Obama administration hasn't been bought."

     bullshit puff piece.

     (Whatever)

     Posted by bleedingheart at 08/13/2009 @ 8:27pm

193. "WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use...

     <snip>

     WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:

     Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens."

     http://tinyurl.com/ns6z4k

     Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2009 @ 8:53pm

194. I'm against subsidies for farmers and corporations.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

     Terrific.

     When do I get to stop paying for Halliburton and Blackwater?

     Or did the "Founders" contemplate corporate, for-profit warfare?

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/13/2009 @ 9:48pm

195. Provide evidence that this is the official Republican Party line...you can't because it's not true. That just makes you someone who leaps to conclusions without any evidence and a liar. I'd say that speaks ill of you, not me.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Uh, Larry, the Republicans NO LONGER HAVE a party line. That's the whole point, and the reason you are in the situation you are in politically.

     You have no leadership. The leadership you HAD makes me wanna take a shower.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/13/2009 @ 9:50pm

196. Provide evidence that this is the official Republican Party line...you can't because it's not true. Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 4:35pm |

     Official? Perhaps not, but definitely a con idea...here's a Pug from Georgia who argues back in '08, quite fervently, for the provisions of the bill causing all this ruckus.

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

     Damn you Isakson! What were you thinking?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/14/2009 @ 12:47am

197. So co-pays and deductibles are there to "prevent waste" but the fact remains that they also serve as a disincentive for people on a tight budget to get care or fill prescriptions.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 3:12pm

     Yes, this is one of the problems of radical egalitarianism. In order to pretend everyone is the same we charge everyone the same even though the same price has a different motivational impact on different people.

     In Sweeden (I think) traffic tickets are assessed as a percentage of income. A company executive recently paid a $50,000 fine for speeding.

     In the US we believe we need one price for everyone. It's not working terribly well.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/14/2009 @ 05:51am

198. Wow! If this is a major chain,

     Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2009 @ 5:20pm

     It's not. It's a clinic pharmacy in MN.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/14/2009 @ 05:57am

199. Some employees are lucky enough to get fully paid health coverage as part of their employment package; however, I know an awful lot of people who belong to a group (through their employer) but must pay the premiums themselves, and I know a lot of people who are self-employed who pay the premiums for individual coverage themselves.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 5:54pm

     Are you sure?

     Today, a plan where the Employer (E'er) pays 100% is almost unheard of (I think maybe tobacco companies might.) Generally, the Employee (E'ee) pays between 15% to 33%.

     My situation is atypical in that our parent company is in Europe and is thus, more paternalistic than many US companies. We still have a defined benefit pension plan in addition to a company match on the 401(k).

     Any what I pay $309 per month in insurance premiums (Annual total $3,703.44)

     I'll bet that sound like a lot.

     My company pays $11,111.04 for a PPO with $500 deductible.

     If you do the math, I pay 25% and my company pays 75%.

     Did you have any idea that family coverage costs $15,000 per year?

     That's one of the reasons E'ees were required to pay a protion of the premium: so that they would better understand the value of the benefit.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/14/2009 @ 06:14am

200. Oh, my E'er kicks in another $941 for dental and $611 for long-term disability.

     That's well over $15,000 in health benefits. I believe median family income is ~$60,000. Healthcare is 25% of that figure. I believe the average person spends ~25% on housing.

     How did we get here?

     The financial incentive feedback mechanism was broken by third-party payer system. The only way to fix that is to make people feel the consequences of routine stuff and only insure the the really insurable stuff like organ transplants and cancer treatment.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/14/2009 @ 06:23am

201. 1) How again does one keep the government out of a government run program? 2) what's wrong with having social medicine, anyway?

     3) What's wrong with taking care of the poor and needy and paying for it through tax dollars?

     4) Wouldn't that be considered a loss of freedom in your eyes...the government "telling you what to do?"

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/13/2009 @ 7:00pm

     Let's go in reverse order:

     4) Mandating insurance is more like the government telling you what you can't do. You can't take risks that will likely hurt others. I can't drive 150 mph. I can't dump motor oil down the drain on my property. I can't choose to "self insure" when I don't have the means to self-insure. I know in reality if I get sick other's will just have to pay for me because society won't let me die because I did something irresponsible.

     3) What's wrong? Nothing. I've outgrown the Libertarian views of my youth. Letting the "weak" die might make "rational" sense from a strictly survivalist perspective, but it's pretty fucking retarded from a human perspective. Personally, I think it would be better if each of the 50 states administered its own plan rather than the federal government. Further, Larry is correct. The original meaning of the Constitution's general welfare clause never intended to enompass items like healthcare. However, as a practical matter, several generations of liberal Constitutional rulings combined with overwhelming public sentiment in favor of federal involment makes being right a moot point.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/14/2009 @ 07:10am

202. 3) Continued The key here, is paying for it through tax dollars. Right now, a lot of it is paid through forced subsidy. Medicare dictates reimbursment rates that are below market rates, so doctors simply shift the cost to other patients who don't really pay the cost anyway. Or, they contrive ways to double bill in order to get a fair price. It doesn't seem like cheating when the government started it.

     2) What's wrong with socialized medicine? It perverts incentives, which leads to an inefficient allocation of resources. I gave an example above about primary education being a good example where a third party payer isn't inefficient. Why? because the ultimate consumer (the kid) isn't a rational consumer to start with. Children can't be expected to make rational economic decisions, so rational dicision must be imposed upon them from a benevolent\paternalistic authority. I haven't given up all of my Libertarian views. I don't view the general adult population of the US as incapable of making rational economic decisions who must have them imposed upon them from a benevolent\paternalistic authority for their own good.

     1) How to keep government out? Ultimately, the question is who decides? Who decides where I need the pain prescriptions? Who decides whether I need the sleep apnea machine? Who decides whether I need the knee replacement? If it is the federal government, the decision will be a committee that necessarily ignores most of the facts and circumstances of my situtation, because the committee needs to develope a one-size-fits-all criteria for elegibility.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/14/2009 @ 07:11am

203. So what's the answer, Darin? Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/13/2009 @ 5:54pm In the US (given Medicare and Medicaid) only about 10% of Americans lack the resources needed to make good decisons regarding healthcare. Probably 50% have too many resources to make good (read not wasteful) decisions. By moving to eliminate the third-party payer nature of our current healthcare funding (read more individual involvement and responsibility) will eliminate much of the waste. (HSAs are a giant step in the right direction.) By expaning Medicaid (or similar program) we cover the 10% who lack the resources currently

     A one-size fits all approach doesn't work. All people are not the same. Some will make the best decisions when they shoulder primary responsibility for costs. Some will make the best decisions when Medicaid shoulders all or most of the costs. Some will make the best decsions when Medicare shoulders most of the costs. I favor a more individually taylored plan than the broad brush approach of single payer.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/14/2009 @ 07:17am

204. One thing you have to watch with Darin...especially when he likes to fling around numbers and figures...is when he injects hyperbole into it and hopes nobody notices and takes it as numerical fact.

     For instance-

     "you'll need a $250,000 lung transplant. That's more money than you'll make in you entire lifetime."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/13/2009 @ 2:22pm

     Really, Darin? If Darla had a MINIMUM WAGE job, paying about $13,000 a year...actually more in her home state of California...she'd make $250,000 in...less than 20 years.

     So unless you figure DD's average lifespan is about 40....or she didn't start work until she was in her 60s....she COULD earn $250,000 "in her lifetime".

     Silly example?...sure. But proof that DTT and his Big Insurance provided figures are just as likely to be manipulated for effect as well.

     Posted by Mask at 08/14/2009 @ 08:42am

205. Dear Darin:

     Yes, I know how expensive insurance presently is. That's the point. I pay close to $13,000 every year for it. No employer kicks in for any of it. I can't afford it but I don't feel it would be "responsible" to go without - does that put me in the 10% who lack the resources or the 50% with "too many resources to make good decisions"?

     You tend to alienate people when you assume they have no clue and simply want to get free benefits that everybody else pays for. This is patronizing - or would that be what you call "paternalistic?" (Maybe I just don't understand your definition of "paternalistic.") You say you believe in more "individual responsibility" for the patient, but don't trust them not to "waste resources." You can't really have it both ways. Ultimately what you're talking about is building disincentives for obtaining care into the system so that people won't "waste resources" - and that won't work when you're really trying to motivate people to stay healthy. Don't you think a system could be constructed in which the extremes of patient behavior - for example, from those who visit the doctor at every sniffle to a procrastinator who ignores the melon-sized tumor on his hip - could be accommodated?

     Your idea of only covering the really catastrophic stuff ("really insurable," in your parlance) is not viable - you need to try to PREVENT the catastrophic (REALLY EXPENSIVE) problems before they occur to have a system that is economically viable, not to mention humane. That means routine care. You need to actively pursue the good result, not just insure against the bad - and this is why insurance company thinking just doesn't go with an economical, effective health system.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/14/2009 @ 10:13am

206. Finally, Darin:

     I would disagree with your Constitutional interpretation. I think "provide for the general welfare" would include a humane system to keep people healthy in the most efficient and economical way - for the common good. As for the perspective of the founders, could they have imagined antibiotic medication, routine vaccinations, or Plavix, let alone chemotherapy or transplant surgery? There weren't even that many doctors, let alone multi-billion dollar health insurance corporations.

     You make assumptions about a government-run system that aren't necessarily true. It doesn't necessarily mean one-size-fits-all. Flexible guidelines that privilege the doctor's judgment are possible.

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/14/2009 @ 10:15am

207. You must be new. See Larry/antisoc is so conservative he wants to go back to the "good ol' days" of the 1890s with not only no regulation over industry...things like safe coal mines...

     but allow 10 year olds to work in them.

     Posted by Mask at 08/13/2009 @ 08:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --only about the 50th time Mask has posted the exact same thing in the past few weeks...watch out Larry, Mask will steal your kids pets and boil them alive! he's craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/14/2009 @ 4:06pm

208. Posted by antisocialist at 08/13/2009 @ 4:35pm

     I apologize if I offended you, Larry. That was and is not my intent. I also apologize if the following posts take up too much room on the thread.

     The main reason I have a problem with you is your (in my opinion) misinterpretations of the Bible on religious and moral matters (although there are some things upon which we can agree) and your misinterpretations (in my opinion) of the Constitution in almost all political matters. Then you base your views on society's ills and the ways to fix them on your (in my opinion) misinterpretations.

     I believe that I try to advocate peace and justice (and freedom) to everyone, regardless of whether they agree with my views. I believe that your views of war (specifically) and social justice (generally) are only meant for those who think and believe as you do. I believe that to be true of most Christian Republicans, including some in my own family.

     I want to live in a pluralistic society. You seem to only want to live in a world proscribed by your interpretations of the Bible and Constitution. I believe that there is wisdom to be found in the Bible and other holy books and faiths, as well as other forms of (yes) socialism, democracy, humanism and government. The fact that you and I disagree on so much is simply a testament to how great this country is.

     I do not want to live in a Christian country. I do not want to live in a Muslim or Buddhist country either. I want to live and prosper in a country that is dedicated to governmental secularism, yet respects and learns from each religion. I want to see a Buddhist, Jewish or Muslim President, not because I am anti-Christian, but because I am pro-American and America is about equality for all. (continued)

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/14/2009 @ 5:53pm

209. (continued) The Founding Documents of this country were written to create a functioning government in which the rights of the individual were held paramount. That country had less than a million people in it. We now have over 300 MILLION people. As times have changed, America has changed, for both good and ill. A social contract, based on the Constitution (in my opinion a living document), has been created and the individual approach has morphed into a societal approach, which still includes the individual above all, but honestly acknowledges the group. That's not an easy thing for such a dynamic society as our own to accomplish.

     Thus are social democracies born. Individual rights have not been abandoned in a social democracy, but the betterment of all is acknowledged in certain matters, such as the overall health care of a nation.

     Canada is not a socialist state. England and France are not socialist states. But they have managed to reach a balance between individual rights and the health of the society that, at the moment, seems unreachable in America due to (in my opinion) inflexible opinions such as yours. Conservatives tend to be less "progressive" than liberals; no fault in that, it's the nature of conservatism.

     However, in my opinion, modern "neo"conservatives have abandoned those principles, solely due to the love of money and power, both of which are warned of in the Bible and almost all holy books on the planet. Eisenhower, Goldwater and Nixon would be considered far left wing radicals today for proposing things like a freeway system built by the government, to gays in the military ("You only have to shoot straight"), to the Clean Air Act. (continued)

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/14/2009 @ 5:54pm

210. (continued) Neoconservatives continue the health care fight for the insurance corporations, not because it is the best thing for ALL Americans, but because it is the best thing for their big corporate masters (i.e. political contributors) and might make the current Democratic President look weak politically.

     They (FreedomWorks) put out information about how to disrupt town hall meetings, not discuss the issues. The status quo is all right for them, because they don't think the system is broken, or because their money men are telling them (or paying them) to do it. Doesn't THAT upset you at all? That money speaks louder to our Congress than the will of the People?

     Whether that battle against Obama is also racist at its base I will leave to others. Whatever the case, scoring political points at the expense of individual Americans without health care is just Wrong (and in my opinion, un-American and un-Christian) and illustrates to me a love of power for power's sake. And the people who love power for power's sake are EXACTLY the same people, on either side of the spectrum, who should not have it.

     I want to live in a country in which the purpose of government is not to serve the interests of a few, or the large banks and corporations, but of the many individuals which make up this country. To do that, Americans need to be a healthy people. Yes, we should all eat right and take better care of ourselves and individual responsibility is very important, but since you can't mandate individual responsibility in a country of free people, to ensure a healthier society we need to have public coverage for everyone and stop worrying about whether we'll have socialist medicine or not. No Person Left Behind. That's a social contract that follows the spirit of the Bible.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/14/2009 @ 5:59pm

211. Funny how Obamanation, the Demoncrats, and all the leftwingnut fringe groups have spent over $48 million, not counting the new $12 million dollars trying to sell this dead pig in a poke. Even with 6 to 1 spending they still can't convince Americans they are not the socialistic marxist leaning faction of America we KNOW they are just reaching for more political power at the expense of liberty and freedom!

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/16/2009 @ 12:11am

212. I want to live in a country in which the purpose of government is not to serve the interests of a few,...

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/14/2009 @ 5:59pm

     Gubber programs such as.....

     Food stamps serve the majority?

     SCHIP serves the majority?

     Housing vouchers serve the majority?

     Welfare serve the majority?

     MediCaid serve the majority?

     Gubber unions serve the majority?

     Lobbyists serve the majority?

     Tort lawyers serve the majority?

     GM/Chrysler bail/buyouts serve the majority?

     Funding ACORN serve the majority?

     Cash for Clunkers serve the majority?

     First-time Homebuyer tax credits serve the majority?

     Public option health insurance serve the majority?

     Employee Free Choice serve the majority?

     Subsidies for alternative energy investors/adapters serve the majority?

     Saving little obscure fishes while causing loss of irrigated farmland and farm workers serve the majority?

     Limiting offshore drilling serve the majority?

     Limiting nuke power serve the majority?

     Limiting coal-powered plants serve the majority?

     Imposing CAFE standards on cars serve the majority?

     Minimum wage serve the majority?

     Tacitly promoting illegal immigration serve the majority?

     Putting racist Wise Latina on the SC serve the majority?

     Calling cops stupid while knowing few facts serve the majority?

     (damn, I've still got almost 500 characters left....)

     Habitually lying to voters (and followers) by Magic serve the majority?

     Telling foreigners America is guilty of all sorts of sin serve the (US) majority?

     Upholding unconstitutional extension of presidential terms by Zelaya serve the majority of either the US or Honduras?

     Pork funding of small rural airports, most flagrantly by John Murtha to the tune of $200 million+, serve the majority?

     FACT: Dem Gubberes ONLY serve the minority!!

     Posted by Happy at 08/16/2009 @ 10:45am

213. Hey it's Sunday and the church bells are ringing.

     To those of you who think everyone should be left to sink or swim on their own:

     This sounds remarkably like the survival of the fittest, and leaves us in a state no better than animals. I always thought God gave us conscience and the capacity for forethought so we could abide by the words of Jesus - or any of the other major religious prophets who advocate compassion.

     Example: Matthew 25:34-40: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

     Or do you have a version of the Bible that leaves this out? Or any of the other passages that compel us to mercy and compassion and acting for the common good of our fellow men? Perhaps you will say that you DO help your fellow man, and that every individual should. Good. But our individual actions alone cannot solve this huge problem. So personally, I'd rather support a reform of the system that more effectively covers all people - my conscience would certainly rest easier.

     You might be interested in "The Political Teachings of Jesus" by Tod Lundberg

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/16/2009 @ 12:26pm

214. Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/16/2009 @ 12:26pm

     I've got a thought in my head and I know it's not going to come out in English correctly, but I'll try my best.

     Democracy is about balance: balancing rights with responsibilities, balancing invidual equity with social adequacy, balancing my freedom to ... (say, to protect my family) with your freedom from ... (say, to avoid the risk being hurt my my irresponsibility).

     You mention a Dickinsonian horror scenario where "everyone should be left to sink or swim on their own" or a natural selection "survival of the fittest".

     We agree that this extreme is not what we want for our society.

     What is the other extreme that we are balancing against? If we label this extreme the most rugged of individualism, then collectivism is on the other side of the fulcrum. For the sake of arguement, let's say Soviet or Sino Communism is the polar opposite and we agree we don't want that.

     What are the consideration that tell us when we are past the point of balance?

     At what point do we know we have "too much" collectivsm?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/16/2009 @ 5:48pm

215. C'mon, there's no chance that health care reform will transform the US into a socialist or communist state. You refer to two extremes; other solutions exist. For example, in Germany, the most conservative parties - the CDU and the CSU - have long supported a comprehensive health care system.

     I quote: "The doctrine that guided CDU policy was the neoliberal notion of the social market economy. Basically conservative in outlook, it was 'not the kind of doctrine that is likely to inspire an aggressive social program.' This is not to suggest that the CDU was opposed to state provision of social services. Such a position would be incompatible with nearly a century of German public policy and the expectations of the German people. What the CDU did oppose was a social welfare state."

     from "A comparative approach to policy analysis: health care policy in four nations" By Howard M. Leichter

     So don't you think there's something in between that we could work out?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/16/2009 @ 10:41pm

216. So don't you think there's something in between that we could work out?

     Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/16/2009 @ 10:41pm

     Absolutely I do. But in order to decide on the best balance point, we need to know how much collectivism is too much collectivsm.

     I'm not saying this is a slippery slope to Soviet communism. I'm asking, in your opinion, how much collectivism is too much?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:40am

217. Let me try it this way. There are a few people here who make a god of collectivism. To them, they see this as a question of darkness and light or good and evil.

     When you ask someone, "What is the proper balance between good and evil", the response is that there isn't one. Maximize good eliminate evil.

     I'm starting with the premise that either extreme is undesirable. So this isn't a good vs. evil question. It is a question of balancing individualism with collectivism.

     There are pros and cons to each. My question is what are the considerations that determine the proper balance point.

     In the question of individual freedom vs. societal protection we say, "Better 100 guilty go free than one innocent man be deprived of liberty".

     So one injustice is worth 100 criminal on the street.

     What is the balance in individualism vs. collectivism?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/17/2009 @ 09:56am

218. "Funny how Obamanation, the Demoncrats, and all the leftwingnut fringe groups have spent over $48 million, not counting the new $12 million dollars trying to sell this dead pig in a poke. Even with 6 to 1 spending they still can't convince Americans they are not the socialistic marxist leaning faction of America we KNOW they are just reaching for more political power at the expense of liberty and freedom!"

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/16/2009 @ 12:11am

     Yeah, right.

     "Final aggregate numbers are likely a day or two away as reports continue to trickle in and get tallied by journalists and watchdog groups. But the data so far suggest that the second quarter has a good chance of reaching a new high for the health-care lobby. The industry already set records from January to March, when health-care firms and their lobbyists spent money at the rate of $1.4 million a day."

     http://tinyurl.com/n9ufjp

     That's just January through March. Do the math.

     Posted by FLaim at 08/17/2009 @ 3:29pm