Political Theater or Substantive Debate or Both?

Maybe if Baucus hadn’t stalled and the traditional press hadn’t run after the FOX sponsored Tea Party like lemmings, the truth about HCR would have been better communicated. When you say most of the Rep ideas have been rejected, that is what Baucus was doing. Supposedly, he was trying to compromise with the gang of 6 (my sense he wanted a watered down bill to please the insurance industry). Nothing the Dems would have offered would have been accepted. Nothing Obama offers now will be accepted by the Reps.
The chants of Socialism, Facism, death panels, your insurance will be taken away, higher taxes were allowed to permiate the news all through August. Screaming mobs interrupted forums. The press loved the drama. The Dems did a lousy job of interrupting the message and the press did a great job spreading it.
Always fact check well after the fact I say

Thanks, Kate, but is this political theatre or puppet theatre?
As I replied to KT, I’m not betting on any results but it could be a trap for R’s (no ideas) if cards are played right. I’ll repeat earlier thoughts too that many don’t get it because it doesn’t hit home (yet). Keep driving home personal touch stories (think KT’s cover story) + hard numbers and the perils of relying on employer-based HCI with 16-17% unemployment.

Kate, this post has serious issues. You ought to retract it.
.
You write:
.
“But then again, Obama is right about the fact that there is wide misunderstanding about what’s in the House and Senate reform bills. The latest tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, for instance, showed that 60% believe Democratic health reform would increase the deficit in the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says this is not true.”
.
First of all, the idea that the CBO is infallible and can predict deficit outcomes reminds me of fundamentalists who wear the t-shirts that say: “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.” Second of all, as I am sure you are aware, the CBO’s “scoring” is not even intended to predict actual outcomes–that’s the whole idea of static scoring. They’re roughly akin to pro forma financial statements, but less accurate than those. Thus your “not true” is, to borrow a phrase, “correction worthy garbage.” You should restate the reporting. And really, if this thing is deficit-neutral, then why do the tax increases (which always seem to bring in less revenue than thought) start immediately, but many of the provisions kick in three years later? And how has the Massachusetts plan worked? There may be differences, but there’s pretty good evidence that HCR ain’t gonna be deficit-neutral.
.
Then you write this:
.
“The Kaiser poll also showed that 30% think those with employer based health insurance would have to change to different coverage. As I’ve pointed out, the Democratic legislation painstakingly preserves the employer-based health insurance system.”
.
Stunning logic. That an employer-based health insurance system remains does not mean that HCR hasn’t created incentives for companies to change the coverages they offer or even decide to not offer insurance. And even Barack Obama has admitted that HCR legislation does NOT live up to his “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” promise. (By the way, WaPo has reported that’s a broken promise.)
.
Although this is not an error, I think you’ve overstated your case. Obama may have pocketed a technical victory over the GOP, but I think his admission that HCR doesn’t adhere to two promises (namely, if you like it, you can keep it, and nothing will come between you and doctor) hurts his efforts to get HCR done, and isn’t that what he’s after?
.
Second, during the debate with the GOP, Obama went into a long spiel about West Va. But just a few days later, Senator Rockefeller was, um, pretty hard on what West Virginians felt about his policies. Guess West Virginia didn’t get the “Barack owned them” memo.

…in case you chose to miss this at KT’s post in favor of kicking the reporters…
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1958671,00.html
Compare your God comment to KT’s second paragraph in this piece and then apologize to Kate already.

No apology. The article you cite doesn’t even contradict what I wrote. No one doubts the CBO’s competence. But they’re not even going for actual results with static scoring. And deconstructiva, if it were really deficit-neutral, then why do taxes kick in three years before the bulk of the outlays?

Re the title: both, I would say. Anything done in a public forum is somewhat theatrical.

Spob, your post has serious issues. You should retract it.
.
You wrote:

First of all, the idea that the CBO is infallible and can predict deficit outcomes reminds me of fundamentalists who wear the t-shirts that say: “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”

Who said anything about the CBO being infallible? This is a straw man, red herring, or both.

Second of all, as I am sure you are aware, the CBO’s “scoring” is not even intended to predict actual outcomes–that’s the whole idea of static scoring. They’re roughly akin to pro forma financial statements, but less accurate than those. Thus your “not true” is, to borrow a phrase, “correction worthy garbage.”

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Kate did not say “not true.” Kate specifically said:

The Congressional Budget Office says this is not true.

The rest of your first paragraph is hand-waving and speculative nonsense. Then you get to your second paragraph, which is even worse than the first:

Stunning logic. That an employer-based health insurance system remains does not mean that HCR hasn’t created incentives for companies to change the coverages they offer or even decide to not offer insurance. And even Barack Obama has admitted that HCR legislation does NOT live up to his “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” promise.

How does what employers choose to do on their own become the responsibility of HCR? By your own stunning logic, any number of bills or other legislation could potentially cause employers to drop their insurance plans and thus “break the promise.” Who knows, maybe indigestion cause by a bad hotdog was the impetus for a boardroom exec to decide enough was enough… was the hotdog vendor to blame? The point is that the bill does not mandate switching insurance companies.
.
I don’t even particularly like this bill (it does not address the actual price of medical procedures vs other countries,etc), but your misguided and boorish rants are extremely annoying.

redraven, have you always been this dense, or did you have to work at it?
.
Kate cites the CBO to prove her point that people are ill-informed about HCR. So she’s owning the conclusion. (i know, reading comprehension is such a difficult thing.)
.
As for “you can keep it”–whether or not switching is “mandated” or whatever, if people, as a consequence of HCR are forced to switch, then they don’t really care about the whys and wherefores. In any event, let’s take an example even a lib can understand–say government tax policy creates incentives for outsourcing jobs, would you accept a “well, gee, the policy doesn’t mandate outsourcing”? No. And that poll question doesn’t limit the “change” to what’s mandated by HCR. So when Kate says, well, the bill doesn’t get rid of the employer-based health insurance, that’s kinda besides the point.
.
Call your college, if you went to one, you should get your money back.

The summit is clearly strategically placed to allow for justification to pass the Senate bill with the reconcilliation modifications. Specifically its designed to counter the accusations that HCR is being rammed down people’s throat. The Republicans have the opportuity to either rejoin the debate or hand Obama the keys. I think the results are pretty easy to predict.

Why wasn’t this part of the health care blueprint last year? Engage the Republicans, express outrage at their certain refusal to either meet with Obama or offer any bipartisan ideas, then sell your own bill to the public.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Matt: you assume that the Democrats have the ability to plan a good strategy. They don’t. The idea that we have 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans means nothing. We have a dozen Lite Republicans calling themselves Democrats. Most are comfortably settled in the insurance and drug industies’ pockets. I have lost all respect for some of the denizens in the WH and for the leadership in the Democratic Party (with the exception of Nancy Pelosi). They have mastered the art of scoring “own goals”.

Political theater or substantive debate? Both, of course. Just like the GOP House Q&A with the President. Republican’s worm their talking points in their questions, and Obama calmly dismantles said talking points.

This is a brilliant last stand for Obama. His goal, as you have pointed out, is to subject GOP Health Care proposals to an “independent panel of experts” whereupon the panel will dissect those proposals and show how they fail to provide a comprehensive solution.

Since Obama is calling the GOP’s bluff, they will lose face if they refuse to meet with the President for purposes of sharing their ideas.

You are right to say that Obama knows and has rejected GOP ideas. Obama clearly told the House GOP that he has read their bills. At the end of the day, a decision on which approach is “better” has to be made, and Obama’s betting that the American people will see the virtue of the democratic proposals over the republicans. We will see.

Posted from the previous thread:
.
In the entire process / debate, if we can call it that, Democrats from the President down have acted and behaved like children. The “behaving badly” part was, “I have all the toys, you do not, and now I will make you play how I want the game played or you can just go home”. . Is that an accurate description of “playing badly”? .
.
Democrats for over a year enjoyed a 60 vote “super” majority in the Senate, a clear majority in the House, and a Democrat President. . The rejection of this bill was not from simply Republicans. It is a rejection of this specific bill from over 60% of Americans. The polling clearly has shown over the past year as Americans have understood this very complex bill, they do not like it at all. The Republicans to your disdain, went with the populist sentiments, and they have won. First, election victories in Virginia, New Jersey and last but overwhelmingly not least, Massachusetts. . The election of Scott Brown (R-MA) has sent a clear and undeniable message to Washington. “We do not like your Health Care Plan Mr President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Go back and do it all over again.”.
.
The over 2000 page Health Care Reform bill is full of crap. Americans understand and fully see when a bill is crap, they do not want any part of it. Period. . This is nothing more than political theater. Obama is attempting to show some bipartisanship work on a bill, and then come back ramming it through as is, I am confident. People will reject it yet again.
.
The American people have spoken very loudly and clearly. “We do not want this bill as our Health Care Reform Policy”. Go back and work on it, this time with bipartisianship in mind, keep the meetings transparent, and then present another bill that has the things in it which will provide for reform.
.
Obama has proven yet again he is out of touch. Those of us in the majority will need to once and for all tell Mr Obama we do not like your plan. Hopefully the Tea Party Patriots will voice themselves, and make ourselves heard yet again. We will continue to put pressure on our Representatives and demand that they vote this specific bill down as written.
.
Go ahead Mr Obama, have your meetings, but the outcome will not change.

“Spob, your post has serious issues. You should retract it.”

.
Actually no, you are wrong redraven. Spob is exactly right in his assessment. The CBO ESTIMATE does not mean squat. It is what it is, an estimate. Plus as spob points out clearly, if this bill did not cost anything, why the tax increases and the cuts to Medicare as is proposed in this bill?
.
This is a major part of the rejection of this bill and anything like it going forward. We the People understand clearly that this bill costs too much, and at this time in our history, we cannot afford it.
.
Then to top it off, we do not want to be “mandated” that we must buy insurance simply because our government says so. Our Freedoms and Liberties are under attack by this bill with this language. It is simply unconstitutional.
.
Kate Pickert along with her mentor, Karen Tumulty are shilling for the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled House and Senate. They are progressives. They want this bill to pass. They are not reporters who are unbiased in this debate. They have both clearly shown their bias towards passage of this bill. They will support anything that comes out of the White House.
.
Go ahead ladies. Do your best to prove my point.

Thanks to Mitt Romney, the people of Massachusetts currently have almost exactly the same kind of health insurance reform that Obama is proposing for the country. Unless a vote for Scott Brown came with a vote to repeal all that they currently enjoy, then no, it wasn’t a rejection of health care reform at all.

Check this video out — Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200 – Key Points
.

.

kevin:
.
You simply are like Obama. In complete denial. The vote in Massachusetts was clearly a vote against Obama and his health care plan. Period. The vote in Massachusetts came down to two policies of Obama’s, his inability to create jobs or concentrate on the economy, and a rejection of Obama’s health care reform.
.
Coakley was for a Government Health Care Plan as proposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Scott Brown was clearly against it. The Massachusetts voters said “no”. They elected Scott Brown to the Senate.
.
They elected Scott Brown to the seat held once by Mr Health Care Reform himself, Teddy Kennedy.
.
Denial is a great thing so long as someone else is not around to refute it for you.

Yes, I am the one who is in denial about the fact that Massachusetts voters already have the health care plan you’re talking about and therefore didn’t seem to be voting against it. I’m in denial. Keep telling yourself that.

From Cenk Uygur:

You don’t get bipartisanship by asking politely. Obama made the mistake of asking Republicans over for tea in his first year in office and thought he could charm them into voting his way. You don’t swing votes by asking politely, you swing them by implicit political threats. You do it with political force.

…

This is one of the few things George Bush did well. Why do you think all those Democrats voted for the Iraq War, because they liked Bush? Because he asked them nicely? No, he made them believe that they will lose their seats if they didn’t vote with him. And all of a sudden, he had a solid bipartisan vote in favor his policy.

In this case, Cenk was talking about financial reform, but the same advice applies to getting bipartisanship on health care, climate change/energy independence, jobs bills, or any issue that tends to break down along partisan lines.

Obama’s problem with HCR is that he thought that he could water down the legislation for the lobbyists and still get credit as long as he passed something. Now that it looks like it would be helpful to actually get some GOP votes, what would ordinarily be Obama’s greatest hole card — the overwhelming popularity of HCR in principle — is not that effective because the Senate bill isn’t that popular. He can’t dare the GOP to obstruct a bill with an individual mandate, a kickback to Nebraska, and no public option. That’s a challenge they will take willingly after the Mass. debacle.

perceptive comment

Oh! YouTube! It must be true, then! Because no falsehoods or distortions are allowed on the Internets. Right?

Yes. CBO gives “estimates”, and they are just “estimates”. However, I do hope you know that unless you know a good psychic or tarot card reader, no one knows the future, and the best thing we can use are these “estimates”?

Stop with the BS.

CBO is a neutral office (or as neutral as you can have it), reporting to Congress. Every single Congress has used it as the best credible forecast of the impact of their policies, be it Reagan’s, Clinton’s, W’s, or Obama’s.

Did you complain when the CBO gave estimates to Republican priorities such as Tax Cuts or Tax Cuts, or did you say that they were just “estimates”?

If you have a better way to “estimate” policy that we are all unaware of, please enlighten us. Otherwise, do us a kind favor of actually READING what’s posted in these blogs, educate yourself, and stop acting like an ignorant hack.

NOW…. as for requiring that Americans buy insurance. Are you unhappy about the fact that all Americans are required to buy CAR insurance? What, exactly, would happen if you did not have car insurance and totaled your car, or hit someone else? Answer: You would be liable for all damages to your car, and for any damages to property or people hit.

That means the car insurance you buy is protection for the rest of us against your own actions.

Now, what exactly happens when someone doesn’t have health insurance and they have an accident?
Answer: They go to the insurance room and usually WE have to pay for an extremely expensive bill.

Or, if they get, say, diabetes and don’t get treated for years?
Answer: Eventually they go, and we get stuck with a huge bill due to much higher health care costs.

Or, if they get an infectious disease and don’t go to the doctor in time to get it managed, and it’s an infectuous disease?
Answer: They spread it around.

In the end, having health insurance is the BEST possible way to control health care costs. So, please, oh please, oh please, explain to me, why is making it mandatory a BAD thing?

Oh, because “you don’t want to”? Well, tough! You want to be part of a functioning society, you need to actually act as part of it. Otherwise, please get out, or go live in a mountain somewhere. Would probably be better, since you’re probably against any “government” funded stuff, such as roads, hospitals, firefighters, police, education, etc.

Good riddance.

Obama is well aware of Republican ideas about how to change the health care system and he has rejected many of them already.

I may be a little dense, but I haven’t even heard of the Republican plans.
Maybe someone can tell me what they they proposed to solve two of the biggest issues:

1. How would they stop insurers from denying treatment for preexisting conditions?

2. How would you make insurance available to the 30+ million people who are currently largely shut out of the system but still act to jack the insurance rates for the rest of us?

I’d say it’s about time for Republican claims and “proposals” to be subjected to real-time scrutiny and reality-based response. Lord knows those claims have been repeated verbatim for months by the great majority of the Stenographic Press Corps™ (present company sometimes excepted).

That’s a real opportunity to advance the discussion, or at least add a needed element to public perception of the credibility of the G-NO-P and some faux Dems in the Senate. Either would be a gain, as against the “benefits” of doing nothing and accepting the status quo, with the resulting tens of thousands of unnecessary American deaths every year (per Harvard.)

“as for requiring that Americans buy insurance. Are you unhappy about the fact that all Americans are required to buy CAR insurance?”

.
Actually you are WRONG. I am NOT
“required” to buy anything from our Federal or State Government. Period. If I choose not to drive a car, then your lame claim is simply that, a lame claim.
.

“In the end, having health insurance is the BEST possible way to control health care costs. So, please, oh please, oh please, explain to me, why is making it mandatory a BAD thing?”

.
Actually this should read, “in the end, having the choice to buy health care insurance is the BEST possible way to control health care costs. Explain to you why is making it mandatory a BAD thing? Simply, it is against our constitutional rights as citizens of this country. Our government cannot simply forces any of us to buy anything.
.
In your Utopian Liberal Far Left SOCIALIST world, what would be next? Buy Chevrolet because the Government has so much money invested into this company? So in YOUR world, buying the mandated Chevy would cause a very stable company like Ford to go out of business. Right? Please tell me the difference. Oh, that’s right you can’t. Go ahead with your 3rd grade name calling. I am sure that is your only defense after this.

You are certifiably insane.

In your Utopian Liberal Far Left SOCIALIST world…
.
Go ahead with your 3rd grade name calling. I am sure that is your only defense after this.
.
rustyblog,
.
Project much??
.
Honestly, the logical disconnect is jarring. Or are we now going to hear a resounding “But he did it to me first..”

What is the debate? Put it on the air, and let us see what comes of it.

Thanks for this excellent commentary.

The reason they have to resort to this format is that the media has transmitted completely nonsense (“death panels” “pulling the plug on granny” all the ridiculous claims about obama) without saying “Of course, this isn’t true.”
.
Naturally the public is confused. People who are speakinig honestly and accurately are being equated with people who are either ignorant or duplicitous. Instead of, say, a point by point comparison of the thing Boehner called a plan, we get a quote from Boehner which is plainly at variance with what is plan.
.
There is olenty of analysis of what different versions of the plan would do. But there has never been an analysis that I have seen about the effects of Republican plans.

With all this hand-wringing about the CBO possibly being wrong, remember that it was the Republicans who were using the CBO as a club over a lot of the Democrat plans as if they didn’t come out in favor of the bill in question, then it must be the law that it was bad. Now the CBO can’t be trusted. Hell, just throw two pieces of paper marked “true” and “false” in the air and see which one you can read when they land on the floor. That sems to be just as accurate as spob is claiming the CBO is and it would certainly be a lot faster.

For it is said that in USA, racism is thicker than good governance [or was it blood is thicker than, eh, America! America!]

sevenoaks07, we don’t have even 59 Democrats by party. There are 57 people who call themselves Democrats and 1 socialist and 1 eunich. And there are a number of DINOs including our own Blanche and Mark Pryor.

They should go for what can be agreed:
1. No cancellation if you get sick
2. Get rid of the co-pay which is meant to be a 3rd insurance source but which we all know is just another way to charge the policy holder.
3. Either insure everyone or make a pool; available at minimal increase over the standard policy.
4. The government must bid for all purchases for any program in which the government spends any money including medicare Rx.
5. Increase the payments to doctors and hospitals in rural areas.
6. Take the upper limit off the Medicare tax. It is stupid to exempt people who would never feel it. Quit worry about what they pay and look at what they have left.
7. Increase funding for medical schools for GPs. Work up a plan of forgiveness of medical school costs for those serving in the military and in rural areas on a sliding scale.
8. Tort reform in that trials must be class actions. Take away any idea that FDA approval is a right to sell a product regardless of patient reaction. Most clinicals involve less than 1000 patients and more will take it the first day on the market than will be in all of the clinical studies.
9. Medical devices, vitamins, and other healthcare products be brought under FDA review.

Obama had an opportunity to push through this plan by showing real leadership within his party, he did not.

If this bill does not pass, it is the fault of the Democrats.

Their disunited, individual/self serving focus on re-election response to this critical and monumental effort by the president to reform a horribly broken system has created this problem!

The newly elected “Pro choice- Republican Senator” of Massachusetts is a testament to the failure of the democratic party and evidence of its fractured state. How did this election of Brown happen?
It happened for the same reason the passage of the Healthcare bill is daily becoming remote and improbable– disorganized, self serving high level Washington “ME, MYSELF and my RE-ELECTION” politicking.

I hope Obama can reign them (Democrats) all in and even take some fiery and feisty notes from Hillary on how to quash “yellow/blue dog dissension.

Who would have thought that Obama would ever be in this position. Losing Senator Kennedy’s seat and now have to go to “plan B” to pass a key initiative.
Can Obama pull this through??

With the rife and growing mountains of misinformation and hysteria out there, I seriously doubt that he can. But who knows? He is a politician and in the past, some of his contemporaries in similar situations have pulled out elephants from hats.

We can only pray Obama has more up his sleeve than what we have seen thus far AND that the press will actually report the facts.

One last thing, about the public… why on earth is it so easy to sell misinformation to people?????

Is TV and the Internet lulling the reasoning and rationality portion of people’s brains to sleep????

Why would people believe the overhauling of a broken system would not be in their best interest?? This is being effected by a first term President who obviously wants to be re-elected.

You would think that people would rationally dismiss the unending screams and hysteria about the Obama Healthcare plan and realize that it cannot possibly be in the best interest of the man in the highest political office in this country … emmm to “Pull the plug on Grandma”.

I think a good article would be to measure and weigh the reasoning ability of the average reasonable man in the twenty first century.

With this Healthcare debacle and all the polls which show people perennially embracing hysteria, one cannot but wonder how clear the thinking and minds of those people (“the public” truly are!!!!!!!!!

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

artraveler, are you available to go to the meeting? Like your ideas!

Everyone needs to stop using the comparison of mandatory auto insurance laws with the mandatory health insurance provisions suggested for HCR. It’s apples & oranges.
.
Auto insurers know that not everyone gets into an accident. In fact, it is a relatively small percentage of the total insured who ever file a claim. Not so with helath insurance. At some point, everyone gets sick, or dies and will require medical care.
.
Mandatory health insurance coverage, coupled with the requirement that all people be covered, regardless of their current health will necessitate higher premiums, period. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be covered, but to claim it won’t cost anything, or even more unbelievably, lower costs to do so, is absurd.
.

random: You never heard of the “law of large numbers”? That is why it has to be mandatory.

apr2563-

“Law of large numbers” or not, if you suddenly insure everyone, claims will go up substantially so long as you have a one size fits all approach. I know all about the hidden cost of uninsured going to hospital emergency rooms, etc., and agree something must be done.
.
If we’re going to make insurance coverage mandatory, change the tax code to give the tax benefit to the individual, rather than the employer, and allow them to make the choice. Then they could shop around and choose coverages, deductibles, etc. that fit their particular needs. That’s a plan I could get behind.

What is your definition of “the law of large numbers”. By the way, take a look at the Medicare Advantage plan. Insurance companies love it. It is subsidized by the government. Insureds have a choice of many medical and perscription plans. All private. The premiums increase every year. Mine have gone from $30 a month to $110 a month in 4 years. Surprise, all of the other so called competitive plans (Aetna, United, Kaiser, etc) have increased by a similar amount. That is the way insurance companies compete. Not. What would happen if you had a real, competitive public option?
That is like saying make the choices interstate. Insurance companies would just flee to those states where they would have the least regulation. See: banks and credit card companies.
I worked in the health insurance business for 10 years. Their goal is highest premium possible, having to keep as little as possible in reserve, avoid insuring sick people, and avoid paying claims. They are not benevolent societies but inefficient, underregulated money machines.

apr, I didn’t know about your HCI background. Please share more of their dirty little secrets (esp. at KT’s posts) when you can – without giving away clues for anyone to identify you, of course. At one of my past jobs the acct. used to be a HCI claims processor. She was soft-hearted and routinely got in trouble for approving too many payouts. She later quit, went to my co., and stayed for awhile until going to a CPA firm.

Obama is no doubt hoping for a sequel to the policy debate victory he notched recently during a televised meeting with the House GOP caucus.

Sigh.

Must the media frame everything as a loss/gain in showmanship and scoring points? Is every blog post you write about making yourself look better, or are they tied to trying to practice the rapidly dying art of journalism?

Perhaps Obama is most hoping for some Republican support/input that actually addresses what budget projections clearly show will soon be even more of a national crisis: our healthcare system.

de: Thanks for asking. I worked for a third party health insurance company that offerred a state plan for small business (HIPC). I also worked for a company that administered SCHIPP.
The CA legislator designed a plan to offer health insurance for employers and their employees. Health insurance companies competed to sell ins. that had to be open to any company with 2 to 50 employees. No preexisting conditions rejections, no recissions. This was meant to insure a maximum number of people giving them the same kind of negotiation power as large companies. Companies had to be offered the plan along with non HIPC coverage. It had to remain under government supervision for 3 years then could be taken over by a private firm. 1st think of the inate bureaucracy both in HIPC and SCHIPP. Employer>Employee>Agent (in the case of HIPC)>3rd Party Adminstrator for enrolling and billing customers offering customer service>Insurance company for maintenance of plan, customer service and claims. Absurd right? See why single payer might have less overhead and efficiencies?
Being a supervisor, I spent a lot of time with unhappy customers who had difficulty getting treatment needed, formularies denied, and claims denied. There was little I could do except use what contacts I had with the insurance companies to make exceptions. A rare occurence. When someone calls crying because their lack of medical care is life threatening, you tend to remember. I had a call early on in HIPC from a woman who worked for a law office. She had contacted AIDS through a transfusion. This was her first chance to get health insurance since. She was crying and thrilled. Before her employer had the choice of insuring her and paying exhorbitant rates for his employees or excluding her.
Well, after the HIPC became privatized, things changed. At its peak we had 200,000 people insured. The insurance companies (Aetna, Kaiser, Health Net, and many others) began demanding rule changes. People were driven off the plan. Underwriting was demanded. HIPC originally had to be less in premium than what was offered outside the plan. Companies were allowed to raise their HIPC premiums making them uncompetitive. You get the picture? Insurance companies never wanted the plan to succeed. When they didn’t get the complete compliance they wanted, they began withdrawing from the plan. Within 10 years the plan was driven out of business. 200,000 people and their employers had to find other insurance.
I often think of that woman with AIDs.

apr-

No one thinks insurance companies are benevolent organizations, least of all me. However, if they have to compete individually for each insured’s business, they WILL compete. If there is price-fixing involved, like in the examples you cite (and which are totally unrelated), we have laws to govern that. If the government isn’t enforcing those laws, what makes anyone think they will be any more efficient administering health care plans? Whether we have a unified national regulatory body governing insurance companies or state-run agencies, if people are allowed to shop for their own coverage,there will be competition.
.
Your question about a public option ignores the fact that any public plan can afford to lowball coverage costs because it is being run by the guys making the rules. Once employers figure they can offer basic minimum coverage by opting into the government plan, that is what they will do.
.
Lastly, if you think GOVERNMENT IS a benevolent, efficient entity, you need help.

de: As an aside, when HIPC first went into business, media from all over descended. After all, this was CA. It could be a model for other states. Indeed, plans were tried in many other states. All closed.
Broder was there taking notes (little, tiny guy), CNN, all the networks, NYT (this was pre FOX). Interviews. Hooray.
No follow-up. As the plan died a slow death, no concern from the traditional media. Broder wasn’t there so it must not have been news.

random: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090610_why_so_scared_of_a_public_plan/
Please read this to understand how much less it is to administer a plan like Medicare compared to private insurance. No one expects benevolence but we do want fairness.
All of this bureaucracy in private insurance, not including the costs to doctors for having to fight for their patient’s right to coverage and billing nightmares, and the rationing that goes on, are not good arguements for their efficiencies. Nor is their CEOs ridiculous salaries.
By the way, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. They don’t have to worry about lack of competition. That is the point of HIPC history and Medicare Advantage. Regulating this has run into the Rep. just say no machine.
You miss the whole point. Private insurance companies did all they could to destroy competition.
How would you cover the woman with AIDs. My nephew has a health insurance savings acct. through his employer. He has diabetes. Do you think he is able to get coverage? If companies did offer coverage to him, do you think it would be affordable.
He lives 5 miles from the Canadian border. Guess where he goes for medical care and perscriptions.

Thanks, apr, excellent info here. Can you email KT privately with the gory details, names, etc. as background for her use in upcoming stories? The more we know about HCI’s practices the more the public will “get it” about HCR (as Kate has lamented). I don’t have her email address, alas (nor anyone’s at the swamp).
.
Kirk, I’m intrigued by your phrase “…if they have to compete individually for each insured’s business, they WILL compete.” (bold text mine, channeling inner rusty) I’m betting if they don’t have to compete – thanks to rescission / claims denials, state monopolies / cartels, etc. – then they’ll keep doing the dirty stuff that apr has described. If only one HCR thing gets done, I want it to be making rescission illegal.

De: Can’t find KTs direct email address. Hopefully she reads Kate’s posts and responses. Many here have good contributions to the debate.

Another failed government, private insurance plan to take a look at is the one instituted under Jeb Bush. It was meant to model California’s early success. However, it was overseen by 6 separate boards that had so many Bush political appointees that it folded within 2 years. I assisted in the clean up of that mess.
Again, insurance companies do not like reform or real competition.

And you know, it isn’t the tradmed doesn’t who knows and writes well about hcr policy issues.
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html
.
If your editors and publishers had run stories like this on a routine basis, there would be much less confusion.
.
Even better, if Wolf shouted his stuff at Ezra instead of whomever he is shouting at these days, it would be better. And, if instead of putting McCain on every other Sunday, you put Ezra on with Enzi….
.
But the editors and publishers and producers and suits don’t do that. There is nothing difficult here. Ezra says that all the Republican hcr proposals have been included. That’s an effective and accurate distillation. But because this doesn’t make it out of his bloggy ghetto, Obama has to resort to silliness like this.

Great link and post.

decon-
“I’m intrigued by your phrase “…if they have to compete individually for each insured’s business, they WILL compete.” I’m betting if they don’t have to compete – thanks to rescission / claims denials, state monopolies / cartels, etc. – ” You are apparently missing my point. First, I do not dispute there need to be regulatory changes to health care coverage. I agree recission should be outlawed, and many other practices need to be regulated. My concern is that taxpayers are being sold a bill of goods that they can have it all (that never happens, right?) without having to pay. The middle class will pay…it always does.
.
Again, my point is, if we allow individuals to shop for the coverage that suits them, costs to the consumer will be mitigated. Young people in good health should not HAVE to pay for coverage that they don’t need, unless they want to. OLDER people in good health shouldn’t have to, either. By having choices, including a cafeteria plan for coverages, deductibles, etc. costs can be contained somewhat by the marketplace.
.
One thing that is always missed when people talk about our high cost of care is how much of that is driven by our demographics. Insurance companies and employers have figured that out and are now promoting wellness plans to help contain costs.
.
Another area of cost containment that isn’t getting traction is computerized patient records and charting. With no international standard for software and methodology, the medical field is still living in the horse-and-buggy era.
.
Also, too many hospital facilities duplicate services and equipment that another nearby facility might have sitting underutilized, all in the name of attracting doctors, patients, etc. This is one free-market area that should get some kind of oversight.