Anthem Blue Cross Makes The Case For Health Reform

KT-I take it you are joking right? A mandate is in no way going to stop insurance premiums from going up. As a matter of fact I will bet you a dollar to a donut if this passes the insurance companies will say with a straight face that they have too many people on the rolls and need to raise rates.

Requiring people to buy something is unconstitutional. I know you don’t have much use for the Constitution, but it’s reality. A mandate wouldn’t get past the first lawsuit.

That’s assuming that the federal government, under the guise of “regulat[ing] interstate commerce” can require people to fork over money to insurance cos. There’s also the other problem–that you’re requiring younger (and generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older (and generally more wealthy) people. Young people also are often saddled with student loans etc., and we’re going to pile on the burden to subsidize older people? That is simply unfair. On top of that–who knows if Social Security is going to be there for the 20-something crowd–something which they pay into now.
.
Just out of curiosity–what “must cover” laws are there in California? Do California health care plans have to cover things like addiction? If they do, that’s a cost driver too, and very very unfair to make others subsidize.

I’m not sure that the mandate is unconstitutional–but it’s certainly of doubtful constitutionality. At the end of the day, no one knows how Kennedy would vote.

I have no problem with a mandate IF there’s a strong public option on the table. Requiring downtrodden Americans to buy health care from an evil, parasitic industry, however…

If HCR passes and it’s America, not merely CA, we’re discussing here, it’ll spell political suicide for dems for a generation. Worse yet (as the dems running DC deserve will deserve the wilderness), the illusion that their “fix” is liberal will also doom any prospects for real liberalism correcting the plummet into Banana Republic status.

I’ve heard that trampling on state laws and constitutions by mandating federal control of tort law would solve this little inconvenience.
Of course the rest of the Republican healthcare platform (two words: Go Die) would go a long way toward solve the problem as well.

College fan, there are some decent arguments against healthcare reform, but this ain’t one of them. Hint: D’you have car insurance?
.
Fed & state gov mandates that people & businesses buy all sorts of stuff. This “unconstitutional” idea is offbase.

slowp, your response shows a great deal of ignorance. First of all the limitations on state power and federal power are different. Second of all, the requirement that you purchase liability insurance for driving is different, as the privilege of driving on public roads can be conditioned on having adequate insurance–that’s a little different from requiring people to have health insurance.
.
The reality, slowp, is that the Commerce Clause caselaw doesn’t really deal with this issue. There is little question that the feds have the power to regulate healthcare, as it is unquestionably “in interstate Commerce”. The question is whether “regulate interstate Commerce” includes the power to compel individuals to in effect join interstate commerce. An individual just being isn’t in interstate commerce. The feds could argue that his not purchasing insurance “affects” interstate commerce, but that seems a tough argument to make.
.
Bottom line, the government can regulate cars–can it make me buy one?

I look forward to Anthem Blue Cross quantifying what “many” is and how that “many” number differs from say 2 years ago.

They went for a big increase and are spinning like a top.

KT asks: ‘So why is Anthem Blue Cross raising the premiums of its California customers by as much as 39%?’

Because they can. Because they want to maximize profits. Because as long as the citizenry continue to act like sheep they’ll be shorn.

Did Anthem Blue Cross ‘have to’ raise their rates this way? Decide for yourself:
WellPoint sees profit grow eightfold in fourth quarter

For those of you who still think we don’t need HCR, just keep telling yourself:
‘We have the best health care system in the world’
‘We have the best health care system in the world’
‘We have the best health care system in the world’

And don’t get laid off or get sick.

Our system needs reforms–just not this reform. The Weimar Republic had serious issues–the cure, Nazism, was far worse than the disease.

Heck. The gov’t can mandate that able-bodied men serve in the military, but can’t mandate health care coverage?
.
Sounds like the general welfare to me:
.
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,…”

Sorry for the OT, but am I the only one who’d not seen this? I needed the yuks.

Yet another example of flawed arguments. The reason that the draft is Constitutional is that it is a typical attribute of the sovereign (and provided for in the Constitution “raise an Army).
.
As for the taxing power, the problem is that the tax isn’t income based, which creates problems to detailed to accurately explain off the cuff.
.
There are serious issues with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. That you haven’t heard about them is a serious error of the MSM’s coverage of HCR.

To be fair, that’s not an honest comparison. If I *choose* to get a car I’m required to have insurance. I can choose not to get a car. I can’t choose not to live. Well, technically I can, but let’s not go there…

If you’re required to pay something of that nature it’s essentially a tax. I’m happy to have my taxes go to essential services like police, fire, schools, the military, etc. I’d be happy to have my taxes pay for my healthcare.

My issue is being required to pay a “tax” for my healthcare to a for-profit industry that answers to shareholders first and has a habit of not really caring about our health or well-being…

slowp:
.
LOL.
.
I’m just going to pretend to be spob for a sec, hold on:

You are a f*cking dolt.
.
Your pitiful walnut-brain is obvious to every literate person on earth.
.
You should be ashamed to argue with me –no, you should be ashamed to speak at all.
.
I’m going to throw in a term or two with which you might not be familiar, but not to explain the meaning of this jargon to your satisfaction, only to justify my contention that you are the ignoramus here, not me. It’s not my job to make a difficult subject clear, only to make you painfully aware of your inadequacies, so that you shut up. Then I can say “I owned you,” which is the point of any interaction with you.
.
Firstly, I will say something obvious as if it’s of primary importance, to establish that I’m correct in all things.
.
Second of all, I will bring up an argument as if it concludes the matter, and there’s no possible rebuttal, and liberally populate it with aggressive assertions –remember, I’m talking to an idiot here (you).
.
Then I, spob, omniscient master of the universe, will literally define reality for you. I will say, and it will be so, like the Lord remarking “Let there be Light,” something like “The reality is, cretin, X” where “X” is whatever I say next.
.
After that, I will go on to define what the question is that needs to be answered, so that I can answer it with what I believe is the case using declarative rhetorical devices, pose a little straw man argument as if it were a logical response, and then the matter will be settled, meaning I win.
.
I win, do you get that?
.
The whole point of this exercise is to let you know how dumb you are, so that next time I say something disagreeable, you’ll think twice about arguing in a public forum with me.
.
The whole reason I’m here is to win arguments, and not to discuss issues from multiple perspectives, nor honestly debate in good faith, nor or –now this is laughable– relay good information, so that a person who disagrees with me ends up with a real understanding of both the subject of disagreement, should I know a bit of what I’m talking about, and my point of view.
.
Why would I regard this as a teaching exercise or an information-sharing session? If you’re better informed, that might mean you’d be better able to question my superiority the next time I confront you with your rank stupidity.
.
The purpose of this forum is for me to take shots at my political enemies with impunity, and for you to shut up and try not to look like an idiot.
.
Idiot.

There, I think that’s a decent paraphrase, don’t you, slowp?

I hadn’t. Thank you!!!!

BTW — for those who still argue that the the way to stop rising health care costs is tort reform — California already has medical malpractice liability limits. It’s had them since 1975. The law limits non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases to $250,000.
.
It didn’t limit the increase here, did it?
.
Also, this isn’t just a case of one bad actor. Anthem Blue Cross isn’t the only company in California that’s demanding exorbitant rate increases.

SZ,
Brilliant! You’ve produced another classic.
.
I will consider it an honor to be insulted by you.

Unlike you, KT, I honestly had no idea he was so small. I thought it was fx at first. He’s a natural, that’s for sure. “Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich!”

Bravo.

Spob, do you really believe that your republican party has ever had any interest in passing any health reform?
.
It is clear that they could never let Obama pass anything because any republicans who vote for anything that Obama approves of will be put on the firing line by their own party. You can not spend your entire time calling Obama “Hitler”, “communist”, “a muslim terrorist”, and question if he is even a citizen and then turn around and work with him. The tea baggers would lose their mind.

I actually believe that you, rusty and freeinpa do believe in reform. While I disagree with how to get reform done if I believed that the republicans at least believed as you did than we would at least have something to work towards and make compromises on.

Actually, I think it shows why some form of single payer is essential to the control of health care costs. Insurance companies add nothing of value to the heath care delivery system; they are really nothing more than parasites who bleed off a percentage of every dollar spend on health by virtue of their political power and the corruption of the American politician. Anthem Blue Cross is simply the most blatantly greedy bloodsucker, at the moment.

Sadly, there are liberals in the Swamp just as gleeful about shouting YOU’RE STUPID! at their ghostly mirror images.

No matter what anyone thinks of the substance of health care reform it should be pointed out that Obama chose to attempt passing health care reform in his first year of office. Health care reform is not a way to make yourself popular and he knew it. He decided to spend all his political capital and risk being a one term president in order to pass reform and save lives.
.
I personally admire him for it whether it passes or not. It is the good fight. If your only objection is specific policy issues than you are missing the big picture.

“The Weimar Republic had serious issues–the cure, Nazism, was far worse than the disease.”
.
Does that mean you and your fellow right-wing-authoritarian-followers are going away now or that you plan to be a cure that is far worse than the disease? Oh, and Godwin’s Law.

Thank you, Karen. This is a very important story.

As painful as it is for me to agree with spob, I think he’s right on at least one thing-this isn’t the real reform we need. While I’m not convinced that a purchase mandate is unconstitutional, I do think it’s a bad idea. I don’t care if the gov’t gives me options-I can make an IRA, or I can gamble on SS-but I don’t like being told that I need to buy something. If I believed that mere mass purchases would give us a great HC system, I would consider it, but right now…no way

There couldn’t be a better case for “ObamaCare” and against the GOP’s calls to scrap health care than this. The Obama campaign team couldn’t have said it better in a TV ad…

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

Spob -
.
Okay, perhaps I was a little cavalier in my choice of example. I have a natural tendency, perhaps unfortunate, to bristle when I hear libertarians claim flatly that this or that is absolutely unconstitutional when what they really mean is “I don’t want to do it.”
.
Let’s forget for an instant the commerce clause which, as I know you know, has been used to justify everything under the sun. Fact is, the mandate’s a tax, and any legislation is going to be worded to reflect that, just like w/ SSI (fed) or UI (state), for instance. As you know, exact wording in these matters papers over a lot.
.
The constitutionality issue may fire up people on RW/Lib sites, but IMHO I don’t think it flies in the real world.
.
(btw: Has anyone challenged MA mandate yet?)

Any word yet on how many people have opted out of coverage to explain an increase of “as much as 39%”?

Wow, that ellipsis at the end of your comment is so tantalizing, Matt. I mean, I can barely restrain myself from clicking on “Political Buzz by Matt”
.
Seriously, why not pair up our two resident blogsluts, you and Michael Fury. Purveyor of CW + conspiracy nutjob = match made in heaven

Sadly, JC is absolutely correct.
.
There are too many liberals here who love to shout their own superiority at whoever disagrees with them, as well.
.
There is too liberal use of terms like “idiot” and “insane” (and other character assassination) by people on my side of the ideological fence.
.
spob, I’m not taking a shot at you because you’re a rightist, I genuinely think that you do yourself, your political philosophy and this forum poorly through your style of debate. I’m of the opinion that your knowledge and intellect obligate you to help people who don’t know as much as they should, not to beat them into silence. These are your fellow Americans, you know, and that should count for something to you, shouldn’t it?
.
I will try to point that out to somebody on my side, when I see it happen, because –honestly– it’s worse for me when my side makes all liberals look like superiority-driven, righteous assh*les.
.
God knows that centrists like Joe Klein have been bringing out the worst characteristics of non-conservatives lately. Joe Klein, by virtue of his position as a pro writer on this forum, should be an example of honest, knowledgeable debate and discussion, instead of what he is.
.
I guess my whole point is that this is a pretty decent forum, given what’s out there, and we should try to make the most out of the fact that this blog doesn’t self-segregate by ideology, instead of turning commentary into the cheap seats at a WWE show.

Would you please take your blog-whoring elsewhere?

OregonJC:
.
You’ve just made this one of the best threads evah.

Spob,

Thanks for taking the time to actually read the Constitution, especially the boring parts like the commerce clause. Finally someone who actually read the document instead of just popping off at the mouth (or keyboard in this case).

Though the clause itself brings up an interesting idea (to me as a political scientist, educated at a LIBERAL arts university at least) in this context; that the government reserves the right to regulate just about anything in commerce as long as some portion of it (a raw material for example) has to cross state lines for the service or product to be rendered. That being the case, theoretically the government can, under the auspices of the commerce clause, tell a doctor not just if we can preform an operation or prescribe a drug, but HOW to do it, unless the drug, or the say scalpel for instance, can be proved to have been manufactured using only products (like metal or chemicals) that were manufactured in the state, using only raw materials gathered within said state and the end product is for sale only within that state.

Sorta scary really. Not that this would happen, just my inane musing on the topic.

As for kbanginmotown’s comment:

“general welfare” would be a tough argument to make, because there would, could and should be a lot of argument as to how best to promote the general welfare of citizens. For example, since the bill as I’ve seen it does absolutely nothing to cut the base costs to doctors, it may well result in less doctors, hence it would not promote the general welfare. For example, my dad showed me a statement from Medicare a couple of months ago when I was visiting him. His doctor ordered some blood work on him which was done by a hospital lab. They sent a bill of $271 and change to Medicare and in return got $12.92. Now, the original charge may be inflated, but lets say it costs them a mere $100 to do the work, if they only get a bit less than 13% of that paid for and have to eat the rest of it (as they do with Medicare) they take a loss of 87% every time they do the test! How long would YOU stay in business if you lost 87% on every transaction? Never mind the real loss of 95% that they did take! (12.92/271=.04767. 1-.0467 = .9533) If that sort of payment continues, along with ridiculous lawsuits and a whole host of other problems people wills simply stop practicing medicine. We already have a huge shortage of RN’s in this country, and it’s estimated it will take 50 years (!) to remedy this, we can’t afford to lose doctors too. It’s no secret why Texas has an influx of doctors while almost every other state is losing them.

The way Medicare cuts cost is by screwing doctors, that’s a fact, its why every year less and less doctors accept it, and eventually none will. That’s government run health care for you, and people love it until they can’t find a doctor.

Also, we no long have a draft, and the draft when in use is supposed to serve as a means of providing immediate protection against a serious threat (I won’t get into Vietnam and the draft with anyone, so don’t bring it up) to the nations security such as an invasion. Are you really going to tell me that heath care is as serious a problem RIGHT NOW as say Chinese landing craft on the beaches of California?

sz, lighten up. My post in response to slowp was sharp and blunt (lol), but not insulting. Moreover, I didn’t talk in jargon. The issue really is pretty simple: does the word “regulate commerce” include the power to coerce someone to purchase health insurance.

Are you really going to tell me that heath care is as serious a problem RIGHT NOW as say Chinese landing craft on the beaches of California?
.
Yes.
.
Americans are actually suffering and dying from a lack of health care RIGHT NOW, while the hordes of Chinese landing craft on the beaches of California are just a figment of your imagination.
.
Tell you what: If we get invaded, sure, we’ll push HCR to the back burner. But until the commie hordes are here, maybe we can focus on what’s actually killing us?

stuart, FTW!

‘Are you really going to tell me that heath care is as serious a problem RIGHT NOW as say Chinese landing craft on the beaches of California?’
.
Yes.
.
45,000 people are going to die this year because they lack access to health care (link). Defending those people is every bit as important as defending beaches.

Much as it pains me, I have to lean in spob’s direction on this one, at least theoretically. Any reasonable reading of the commerce clause SHOULD prevent the government from ordering you to buy a product from a for profit company in such a way that you can’t opt out.
-
However, I’m not aware of any such constitutional challenge being applied successfully in Massachusetts which I understand has had an individual mandate for several years now. I’m not familiar with the specifics of the Mass law or challenges to it, but I have to think somebody has tried to bring this issue up by now.
-
Also, the commerce clause has been twisted way farther than it would have to be for this to work in the past, so it’s not like the precedent isn’t there.
-
And finally, I’d way rather pay taxes for universal coverage than pay shareholders and CEO bonuses for individual coverage.

The problem with our health care has nothing to do with whether how we pay for is unconstitutional or constitutional. The problem is that we paid on a whole way too much for it and that cost is drowning our nation in debt and robbing it of its ability to prosper.
.
Individuals in this country cannot afford our health care system. Small bussiness cannot afford our health care system. Large Corporations cannot afford our health care system. The only people in our system that can afford the American brand of health care are those that have the cost subsidised in some manner.

One of these days you people comparing the individual mandate to the auto insurance mandate are going to realize that there’s a difference between choosing to own a car and “choosing” to draw breath as an American citizen.
.
You might also choose to study the difference between a state level mandate and a Federal mandate.

Sean DeC:
.
Massachusetts isn’t limited by the Commerce Clause in the same way that the federal government is. Massachusetts has a general police power that the feds do not.
.
That’s why the Massachusetts mandate (which isn’t working out so well) isn’t a test of the feds’ ability to impose a mandate.

After reading all the comments on this board it is easy to see those that actually have been out in the REAL world taught the real HISTORY of this country and those that were spoon fed pablum from the PROGRESSIVES..
Now lets go with increases in insurance.. Why suddenly is there such an increase and why did years ago they have a system where as even those without insurance could afford or acquire health care? Start out with years ago people only went to the doctors when they were actually SICK.. not for a stubbed toe or just cause.. they paid the doctors fees CASH.. Kids were given quick physicals at a Board of Health clinic that would go neighborhood to neighborhood once a month give baby shots check the kids and IF there was a problem they saw told the parents to take the kids to their family doctors. This service was FREE.. You bought Hospitalization for emergencies, this covered your room, food,ALL doctors who saw you, surgery etc. when you left you did not owe a dime.. However, you didn’t have a PRIVATE room (unless very ill), cable, internet, etc.. It was NOT a vacation SPA it was a HOSPITAL.. The Drug Companies were not in the business of creating and recreating the same drugs under different names just to MORE money.. they ACTUALLY found cures for ALL.. there were commercial where they pushed things like toys and cleaning products on television. NOT disease and drugs.. kids went outside to play and didn’t sit for hours on their cans, playing was their reward for helping around the house.. they weren’t LABELED every 10 years with a new dysfunction, some were more advanced than others but in the end they all caught up to each other. This is the only country where everyone should be perfect until they die.. and they will die sooner or later all at different ages and NOT all from the same things.. If you know some in their 80′s or 70′s ask what they ate when they were kids, same with those in their 60′s, and 50′s..for them having eaten all the wrong things according to the government nanny’s, not seeing a doctor regularly like the government nanny’s are telling you is necessary how did they live so long? I know MORE YOUNG people that are dieing than older ones.. But we ran our manufacturing out so our air is cleaner and we have more DRUGS, give more shots to prevent things use less chemicals.. and it hasn’t helped.. fact is it hurt us, swine flu effected the elderly less.. why is that? put on your thinking caps and leave the government propaganda at the door.. health care is just another take over of your life..and gain access to your money before you like they already do with SS and Medicare so when you need it the government will cry BROKE..because they already wasted it on PORK projects.. get up and MOVE around do some physical work, open a window..or you won’t have to worry about getting to be 80..

@sasquatch08: Thank you for reading and replying to my comments.
.
1st-ly, I’ll stand by my “general welfare” comment. Every other industrialized nation in the world has realized that taking most of the worry out of health care and the funding of health care is a Good Thing for its citizens; it’s time that the US of A did.
.
2nd-ly, Medicare (medicine) costs. I had an experience similar to your dad’s, but in my case, it was me, not Medicare, picking up the tab. During a hospital stay after major surgery a few years back, I received (among other surprises) an 1800% markup on my asthma meds for the privilege of taking them in the UofM hospital. I only had catastrophic coverage at the time (as do many families today), so I got caught in the overcharging / underpaying crossfire. Except I didn’t get to underpay. So, don’t worry about your dad’s doctor’s Porsche, I and a bunch of under-insured neighbors helped cover the payment.
.
3rd-ly, the Draft. The Selective Service was started in 1940, and continued after WW2 through 1973, during many peacetime years. So, off the cuff or not, I can’t imaging an argument where the government has the right to send young men into harm’s way, possibly death, but not have the right to require its citizens to obtain insurance (a health tax, if you will).
.
Again, Thanks for reading and considering this.

Sorry for the long previous post, and sorry for this repost but I missed this comment and feel in needs a reply

“Does that mean you and your fellow right-wing-authoritarian-followers are going away now or that you plan to be a cure that is far worse than the disease? Oh, and Godwin’s Law.”

This is staggering. Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist [Party] in German (Nationalsozialismus) and if you actually bother to look it up socialism is very far to the left side of the political spectrum. Also, disagreeing with the current HCR bills does not make you a “right-wing authoritiarian” if anything, the HCR is IS authoritarian, because it’s the government telling you what you MUST do, which is the definition of “authoritarianism”.

Note: Before anyone jumps all over me as a total right wing lunatic; I’m not a right, nor am I a left winger. I am actually a very strange hybrid of right and left. Further, I simply believe that people should be educated and that far too many people in modern political debates simply don’t know what they are talking about because they have never been well educated in history, history of politics, civics, politics itself or science not to mention the way our political system in the US actually functions. Therefore they have no idea how to competently discuss modern issues like HCR, or any other political topic without resorting to political talking points put out by their preferred party.

Ok guys, hear me out, I am just thinking out loud. Let’s say that libs are right and that insurance cos. are a big driver of healthcare costs in America. Well, once the mandate is passed, doesn’t that just jack up their leverage over the entire system? Once everyone has to go through them, can’t they just pass along the costs. Who’s gonna get squeezed–they’ll be too big to fail. Docs? That ain’t gonna happen. Big Pharma? Businesses? More than likely–all of us.
.
The fact is that our system of employer-based medical insurance is a massive subsidy to insurance cos. Because of the tax advantages, people with jobs prefer to pay for medical services through insurance cos., and the insurance cos. get a cut of those pre-tax dollars. So what if we figured out a way to keep insurance for emergent things (like any other insurance) and allowed pre-tax dollars to pay for routine medical care. The poor could get credit cards for routine medical care (like food stamp cards) and places like wal-mart would open up doctors offices to provide efficient services.
.
Don’t pillory me–I am just thinking out loud. All except for one thing–insurance cos. are subsidized by the current system.

kbanginmotown: Thank you for your courteousness in reply, and I must readily admit you have some strong arguments. I also appreciate not being called a total lunatic, with figments in my imagination (I’ll deal with that in this post, but it’s not directed at you.)
I support you in standing by your “general welfare” comment, as I said it would be a contentious issue and I’m honestly not sure how it would pan out. I personally feel that the government would face less of a legal issue by going with the commerce clause, because that is totally settled law and clearly no one can make the argument that everything in a hospital or doctors office is produced soley by products of the state in which the hospital or doctors office resides. Matter of opinion, and I respect yours.
On Medicare and insurance, I am sorry that this happened to you, and I totally agree that this is problem that should be fixed with all due haste. I simply don’t think that it can be done unless the under lying costs are addressed in a proper manner. As someone who had serious medical issues as a child I understand the cost that can be incurred, and I agree that insurance companies do sometimes try to shirk their responsibilities. That said, the bottom-line problem is cost. If we can make it cheaper for a doctor or surgeon to do business , then they will bill you, insurance companies and myself less because their overhead is lower, which makes the insurance companies overhead lower which results in lower prices for insurance. Hence more people could be covered without a government program because more people could afford good insurance. The current system is robbing Peter to pay Paul, the cost of your insurance and mine is increased because a portion of every dollar we give a doctor he gives to another insurance company that covers him against malpractice lawsuits.

On your third point, I can see the logic you are following, yet a “mandatory coverage” plan or a health care tax if you prefer is not, in my mind, the same idea. The draft was meant to preserve the integrity of the country and to prevent us from becoming at least beholden, if not governed by a foreign power. The survival of the republic was at stake in WWII and that fact honestly cannot be debated. I agree that the draft was misused in instances like Vietnam. However, the draft didn’t cover everyone. College students, conscientious objectors, professors and those in key manufacturing sectors were exempt. Under the currently proposed plan no one is exempt except union members who happen to support Democrats. Is this new? No. Republicans have done it too. I guess, I would point to JFK’s words; “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and ask is this idea people helping the country or is the government “doing it for you”?

Again, I appreciate and reciprocate your respect.

Kevin and bobcn1: The mention of Chinese landing craft was not meant in the literal sense, but as a hyperbole. I do not expect a Chinese invasion let alone for it to come soon. 45,000 people die from lack of health care every year, true. However, spending trillions of dollars on this problem is not the answer. As mentioned above, lowering the overhead costs would allow many people to purchase coverage and/or better coverage. Insurance companies are not “evil” corporations sucking the life blood from America. They make an average of 1-2% profit a year. Billions is profits is not that big when you consider they have hundreds of billions in costs. The only industry with similar profit is the supermarket industry.

15.3:
.
The Constitution grants to Congress the power to raise and support armies. It does not grant to Congress the power to compel me to do business with a private enterprise.
.
If they wanted to pass single payer and try to justify it as Constitutional under the general welfare clause I might be willing to accept it. But a mandate that I do business with a for-profit enterprise? Do you want me to list the Constitutional issues that raises?
.
1) Freedom of association. SCOTUS has ruled that the 1st amendment protects the right of association. It has also ruled that it protects the right NOT to associate. You can’t compel me to associate with a private enterprise that I may find morally objectionable.
.
2) Security of my papers. I have the right under the 4th amendment to be secure in my papers and effects. Uncle Sam has no business knowing whether or not I have health insurance.
.
3) Religious freedom. Are you going to compel Christian scientists to obtain health insurance? The Amish? Jehovah’s Witnesses?
.
4) The 5th and 14th amendments say that I can’t have my liberty or property taken away without due process of law.
.
5) The 10th amendment says that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states and people.
.
Unfortunately it seems that KT is not willing to seriously consider these issues. The bias in her posts and other writings is amazing and a major symptom of all that’s wrong with the fourth estate in our country.
.
One of these days I’ll find a media outlet that actually tries to be a neutral arbitrator of the facts rather than repeating the talking points of the (D/R)NC.

You know, I just watched this again on my lunch break, and I dunno, maybe I’m overdoing it on the miso, but I just cannot stop laughing.
.
Composure, striving for it … can I just say that this is the type of high-minded stuff that can and should launch presidential campaigns. Robert Reich 2012!

More priceless yet, see how he threaded it into his blog, as if it’s just another straight-video call to arms for the public option: http://robertreich.org/

“Insurance companies are not “evil” corporations sucking the life blood from America. They make an average of 1-2% profit a year.”
..
This is completely a red herring. It’s not the profit margin of insurance companies that is the problem. BTW, insurance industry profits averaged 3.4% in 2008.
US News link
It’s the costs that insurers introduce into the system that is the problem. Profit is a somewhat artificial measure of these costs. Why do you think that overhead costs are 2-3% for Medicare and 20-30% for the private insurance market? Insurance companies sure no useful purpose in health care, at least not as the primary providers.

19.1: I agree. So why do the Democrats want to force me to do business with them against my will?

spob:

once the mandate is passed, doesn’t that just jack up their leverage over the entire system?

Yes, which is why many liberals oppose this bill, and would rather see it die than have it enacted to further catastrophic effect.

Once everyone has to go through them, can’t they just pass along the costs.

Yes, and the Senate bill simply fixes ratios of various ages and family types to a “base premium” that insurers are perfectly free to charge whatever and raise at will –up until 12% of income in the individual market, but sky’s the limit for employers/employees. That’s seems to be the plan.
.
The plan also seems to keep private insurers as the means by which rationing is implemented. As long as the government isn’t rationing care, as long as it’s the bad ol’ insurers denying claims one statistical minority at a time, that seems to be more than fine with New Democrats, in exchange insurers are given the premiums of the people who are least likely to require care –a large percentage of the healthy, young, family-less uninsured.

Who’s gonna get squeezed–they’ll be too big to fail…More than likely–all of us.

Yes, that’s the most likely scenario.
.
Insurers can’t possibly keep up with the hyper-inflationary rise in cost per health care unit we’re experiencing here in the States. They can’t possibly enjoy continued profitability at current levels if the cost of each hospital stay or prescription or specialist visit or blood work grows at 6.1% a year. Employers can’t continue to pay premiums that rise this fast, but they will also be required to pay insurers, so more and more of the premium cost will be borne by employees, until there is no longer the prospect of wage growth at all.
.
Again, rationing will be the answer. If the costs of having a kid in a hospital keeps rising past $30k, insurers might look to curtail expensive hospital births by denying claims past a certain number of hours spent in maternity, instead of days, as it is now. Private rationing, discipline imposed through the existing private bureaucracies are about the only method for keeping a hyper-inflationary system with no price controls going…while it can still go.

The fact is that our system of employer-based medical insurance is a massive subsidy to insurance cos.

Yes. It is necessary because health insurers are necessary to keep government out of the business of denying care, and businesses provide a steady aggregate of premiums dollars paid in small (but bulkier than individual policies) packets to insurers to pay claims.
.
Health insurers must have protections against anti-trust, they must have tax subsidies, they must have mandated premiums from the entire population, because if they don’t get that support, they’ll start to deny care in highly statistically significant ways in order to cope with 6% + health care unit inflation per year.

Because of the tax advantages, people with jobs prefer to pay for medical services through insurance cos., and the insurance cos. get a cut of those pre-tax dollars.

People with jobs don’t “prefer” their providers to be private insurers with tax subsidies –with the price of policies in the individual market well out of reach of most families, they just prefer to have insurance at all, which means having a job.
.
Non-retirees with no job generally can’t afford, and therefore don’t have insurance, unless they’re poor enough (or have just become poor enough) to qualify for Medicaid. People don’t “prefer” it this way, it’s the only way for them to reliably receive medical care.

So what if we figured out a way to keep insurance for emergent things (like any other insurance) and allowed pre-tax dollars to pay for routine medical care. The poor could get credit cards for routine medical care (like food stamp cards) and places like wal-mart would open up doctors offices to provide efficient services.

In a world in which each unit of care wasn’t experiencing housing bubble-style inflation pricing, that might not be a bad thing at all. Hell, if the cost of a colonoscopy wasn’t growing faster than the US economy in better days, people shouldn’t even need pre-tax dollars, they should just put money away in special savings accounts –maybe called “Health Savings Accounts”– to pay for the care they’d need over their lives, and at even today’s interest rates, they might succeed at saving enough to meet normal health care costs.
.
But that’s not what’s happening to the prices of antibiotics and mammograms, spob. Routine care costs –not catastrophes, but ordinary treatment for asthma or tonsillitis or sprains or any normal problems to be expected from families with kids, or gynecologists’ visits and laboratory tests– are accelerating upward every year faster than saved money can reap the rewards of compound interest.

insurance cos. are subsidized by the current system.

Yes, that’s the way it has to be, if we want to have private insurers play a significant role in health care markets with unregulated, hyper-inflationary prices like no other developed country in the world.
.
Medicare will still go broke by 2019, too.
.
The Democrats’ bill doesn’t fix this, nothing that doesn’t change the pricing mechanisms from backroom-negotiated Medicaid floors to transparent, inflation-controlled pricing schedules for both private and public provider markets consistent with what we all have the money to pay, i.e. under 11% of GDP (as opposed to nearly 17% now, and over 20% in 2019) will fix this problem.
.
Obama and the centrists’ plan seems to be to entrench the health insurance industry firmly into its role as subsidized, yet non-governmental death panels, and to give that industry a head start on dealing with their costs in the form of an individual mandate, which was apparently supposed to delay massive premium hikes and the onset of a tidal wave of publicity-prone care/claims denial practices until they were safely far enough away from public memory of having enacted this abortion.
.
I am aware that this all sounds overly dour and dire, but I’ve read the CMS reports, and the Social Security trustees reports, and those spell out what’s coming. I also know that the last time the New Democrats had the Presidency, they repealed the depression-era laws that had formerly prevented Citibank from merging with Travelers’ Group Insurance to form Citigroup. The centrist Democrats believe in industry that’s too big to fail. They’re genuinely surprised to see failure –after all, these institutions are supposed to be too big to do that. I’ve seen these Democrats enact disastrous, unpopular policies that expand the role of industry elites in necessary national functions before, during the 1990′s.
.
Liberal Democrats are going along with it because they’re
.
A) attached to the idea (pushed by Dems as a GOP attack, now used to hold bleeding hearts hostage) that tens of thousands of people will die if nothing is done
.
B) scared sh*tless of the Tea Party bogeyman who (liberals are being told) will take over if Obama fails to sign the “historic” Senate bill in hopey-changey triumph
.
C) still are somehow detached enough from reality to believe that the Senate bill is a Trojan Horse for single-payer down the road somewhere, when it will somehow be “fixed” at some later date in their imaginations
.
All of these rationales are really, really poor, but they’re all liberals have to go on, and they provide some measure of feelings of “success” and “win,” which are much better feelings to have than “we’ve been betrayed” and “we’re f*cked,” as I’m sure you can understand.
.
So here’s your political enemy, a guy who doesn’t find you particularly charming (no offense) telling you “Yes, yes, you’re right, yes, yes, no, no, we’re f*cked, yes, it’s bad, you are correct.”
.
It’s that bad. Once the mandate is passed, there’s really no turning back from this system as it is.
.
After all, if you think that Medicare for seniors is the third rail of politics now, just wait until somebody tries to cut the health insurance industry’s Medicare, and then see what happens.
.
Thanks for thinking out loud, spob, and for reading this whole thing.

Diecash1:

First, thanks for the input and civility.

We can debate if it’s a red herring or not. Personally I don’t see a whole lot of difference between 2% and 3.4%, but I apologize if I was off by 1.4-2.4%. The point that I was making is that the often heard argument that “insurance companies are gouging us to make billions in profits” is totally unrealistic.
As to cost introduced by insurance companies, in some ways I agree with you. The average hospital or doctor’s office spends 21- 34% of its total expenditures on “administrative costs” which mainly entails filling out the different forms that insurance companies require. Why then, not require say a single page or two pages of standard forms or as many pages as needed but standardized nonetheless? Then you wouldn’t need an army of people to push paper for a health care provider No one ever mentions that in this discussion. I restate that bringing down the cost to the doctor would result in lower cost to the insurance companies and therefore to their policy holders.
I have never heard the numbers you quote for overhead on Medicare versus private insurance companies. I would point to a previous post where I mentioned that Medicare paid $12.92 on a $271 bill as part of the reason, thus lowering overhead and cost overall by screwing hardworking Americans who went to college out of the money they charge for services (which I also pointed out may be somewhat inflated for numerous reasons I don’t feel the need to enter here currently). Further, unless you have some source for these numbers I must admit I find them somewhat suspect as I know of no other government institution that has such a low overhead. In fact I can’t actually think of a service the government provides to literally everyone that makes money or actually breaks even . The Post Office lost $6 billion in 2008 according to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal (although admittedly the Journal put it closer to $6.5 billion). If any private company ran like the USPS they would be out of business very quickly. Bureaucracy never makes things cheaper or more efficient, as is proven by the current insurance system. There are dozens of problems with it and the current health care system in general, most of which are never discussed by horribly expensive anyway. However, adding a much larger bureaucracy to the mix (i.e. the federal government) is a poor prescription to fix the program. Why do you think Canadian citizens come here for treatment but get their drugs at home? Where is the largest single group of British doctors located? Florida (MSNBC). Why? Because they can’t pay off their debts from medical school under a “universal” or “socialist” or “equal” system. The idea of increased efficiency by adding the worlds largest bureaucracy to a system that is already flawed just doesn’t make sense to me.

Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist [Party] in German (Nationalsozialismus) and if you actually bother to look it up socialism is very far to the left side of the political spectrum.
.
Yes, socialism is to the far left. The Nazis, however, are on the far right.
.
They named themselves “the National Socialist German Workers Party” because they were founded during the post-October Revolution moment when socialism was all the rage in Europe. But it’s just a name. By that logic, you’d have to also believe that East Germany wasn’t a communist country because its official name was “the German Democratic Republic.”
.
Look at what the Nazis actually did, and you’ll see nothing but hatred for the socialists. Hitler rose to power with the support of the German aristocracy and major industrialists, not exactly a typical pattern for a socialist. Once in power, he waged constant war against labor leaders and socialist politicians. He seized control of the government with the Reichstag fire which was blamed on a communist to rouse opposition to them. The first concentration camps were not set up for the Jews, but for his political enemies — communists, socialists, and labor leaders.
.
If you actually bother to read something about the Nazis by an actual historian — and not, say, Jonah Goldberg — you’ll see all this is true.

For good histories, check out the classic Rise and Fall… by William Shirer, as well as those by Mark Mazower, Ian Kershaw, and Gerhard Weinberg.
.
Since you seem confused about the socialism-fascism thing, you might like Robert Paxton’s Anatomy of Fascism too.

19.2 — I don’t personally like the current HC bills but I do believe that they are better than the status quo is many respects. I also believe that they could be fixed with an incremental approach. As to why it happened: I believe it was because the WH and Congress didn’t have the stomach to introduce a single-payer option from the start. If they had, we likely would not be where we are now.
..
19.3 — The source for the numbers was from an article about a recently completed Mayo Clinic study. I don’t happen to have a link to the study at this point but I will post it if I can locate it.
..
Furthermore, I support a single-payer system as my desired reform. While Canada and Great Britain may not be the desired models, there are many more examples of low cost, high efficiency systems throughout the world, namely Japan, France, Germany et al. All of these examples cover everyone and at a lower cost than we do. I feel that health insurance companies should only sell policies that supplement a single payer or similar system.

Here’s an argument for an “individual mandate” requiring everyone to have insurance, – Karen Tumulty
.
I don’t think that’s true. It may be an argument for universal health care but a plan that compels anyone who can’t find someone else to pay for his/her tax-free coverage must purchase it with his own after-tax dollars is not an equivalent policy.

In simple, broad strokes:
.
The end goal of HCR is to make sure everyone gets coverage and its not canceled when you get sick or because you have a pre-existing condition.
.
Now, the easiest way to do this is to have single-payer insurance through the government. But the political mood in this country is such that we can’t do things the simple, effective way it’s done everywhere else in the civilized world, so we have to channel it through private insurers who really add nothing to the equation other than their overhead costs.
.
OK, to make sure everyone gets coverage through this as*-backwards route, you have to mandate that the private companies take anyone who wants insurance.
.
But if you just mandate that, then many people wouldn’t get insurance until they actually got sick, right? Why pay for it when you’re healthy, if as soon as you get sick you can sign up for a policy?
.
So to keep people from doing that, you have to mandate that everyone get health insurance of some form. This restores the broad pool of people buying into the system, which keeps costs lower than they’d otherwise be.
.
Complicated? You bet. But as long as we’re scared of the big bad gubmint being involved in this thing — no single payer, not even a public option to compete with the private insurers — then this is the only way to make it work.

“I will try to point that out to somebody on my side, when I see it happen, because –honestly– it’s worse for me when my side makes all liberals look like superiority-driven, righteous assh*les.”

Sometimes, stuart, you have some humor, but most of the time you do not see the failings in yourself. you come across just lioke you explained to me. If I have ever seen anyone superiority driven it is you.
.
My God man lighten up; this is a blog no one changes any one’s mind here.

LOL
.
You know, I must say I’ve noticed that you have managed lately to keep up with my obvious personal failings and glaring character flaws rather well via my pointless, pretentious commentary in this ultimately insignificant blog.
.
Thanks for reading!

Kevin:

First off, I have no idea who Jonah Goldberg is, nor do I particularly care. Generally speaking I don’t read far right or left writers unless I have to. (I make the assumption based on your pointing him out that he’s an extremist of some variety. Maybe not, I’ll look him up.)

Secondly I find your claim that I only pay attention to the name patronizing and deceitful. There Nazi’s may have had some right wing tendencies, however there is an “authoritarian right” and an “authoritarian left” in politics. The Nazis, yes did rise to power with the support of the aristocracy and industrialists, this was because of the terrible economic conditions that plagued the Weimar Repbulic, and Hitler’s rhetoric which claimed it would elevate the German people to their previous status as a “great nation”.

So yes, he appealed to these people. However after he took power he murdered a great number of them. His use of concentration camps (in the beginning) for communists and labor leaders is correct, and some socialists were incarcerated there as well. Hitler’s personal correspondence shows two things about this topic. First, he considered communism to be a Slavic problem and he considered Slavic people to be inferior to “arian” people hence his hatred of communists. Secondly, virtually everyone Hitler incarcerated at the beginning of the Third Reich was a politic enemy. That doesn’t mean he hated their politics in general it means they publicly opposed something he did, supported or spoke about. Keep in mind that merely speaking against the Fuehrer was punishable by death. I would tell you to ask the Brown Shirts (SA or Sturmabteilung) leadership on this, but they were mostly killed off during De Nacht der Langen Messer or “night of the long knives” (aka Operation Hummingbird). The vast majority of whom where rabid supporters of Hitler, yet some of their leadership opposed some of his programs, supported Franz von Papen (an aristocrat) or were personal enemies of Hitler or had suspect allegiance and hence about 85 of them were murdered.

Hitler’s social programs which I won’t go into in detail because that takes 100’s of pages were undeniably populist/socialist programs such as expulsion of those that disagreed with him/them from teaching (i.e. teaching things people didn’t want to hear, or they didn’t want people to hear because Hitler was popular and not many wanted to hear that he was wrong), social welfare, an animal protection policy, environmentalism and a public health program.

This is NOT to say that the current bills are in any way Nazi, not is it to demonize the Nazi heath program itself (which was out to remove lead and mercury from commonly consumed food items and well promote cancer education and was the first nationwide program to condemn the use of tobacco as dangerous to your health). Tell me which political party in this country supports universal healthcare, environmentalism or the protection on animals? Isn’t that exactly what the Republicans (whom I do not generally support), that is the “right” are demonized for not supporting?

Your statements are misinformed on the differences between the US national political spectrum versus the international political spectrum at best and leftist talking points at worst.

“My God man lighten up; this is a blog no one changes any one’s mind here.”

I certainly am not here to change anyone’s mind, only for spirited debate from which I might learn something. Clearly political debates get heated, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Airing views in a venue such as this allows people to blow off some pent up steam, respond to alternative views, air their view and in my opinion is just a damn good venue for political discussion. Just my two cents.

gys: “Law of Large Numbers”, Insurance 101

Sorry, link I meant to post on 1.1
http://www.irmi.com/online/insurance-glossary/terms/l/law-of-large-numbers.aspx

But Stuart aka Spob you said you always win. aka spob is it because you are so rational in your debate?
Sincerely, apr2563 aka textee

Thanks JC. I have already sent this on to friends and family. CUOMO!!

Those who think this is unsual conduct from BCBS are not in contact with observable reality. Owing to a prior condition, I have been stuck with them for years—a 37% increase is nothing unusual for them—with a form letter saying “costs have gone up”–this is in Ohio, not California. Our dear friends in Washington who wish to avoid government intervention in a private industry are delusional—check out the state by state control (market share) by major insuror—who’s kidding whom here. The insurance lobby is one of the most powerful in the nation–that’s why the votes go the way they do.

“Requiring people to buy something is unconstitutional. I know you don’t have much use for the Constitution, but it’s reality. A mandate wouldn’t get past the first lawsuit.”

All states have some sort of requirement for car insurance. Yes, you can choose to drive or not to drive but the insurance you’re required to care isn’t in place for you, it’s for the people you could potentially injure. If you participate in our health care system without the means to pay, the rest of us are “injured” financially by having to pay increased fees we’re charged to make up for your consumption of health care resources. It’s not that great of a leap in logic.

Secondly I find your claim that I only pay attention to the name patronizing and deceitful.
.
I didn’t mean to be patronizing, but this was the entirety of your comments on the Nazis:
.
“Nazi is an acronym for National Socialist [Party] in German (Nationalsozialismus) and if you actually bother to look it up socialism is very far to the left side of the political spectrum.”
.
That was all you said. You clearly know more than that original comment indicated, but that’s all I had to go on.
.
The assumption that Nazis were socialists because of their name, and what I took as a snide comment in your “if you bother to look it up” combined to make you sound just like a very common right-wing comment that constantly appears on blogs, one that’s driven from Jonah Goldberg’s insipid book Liberal Fascism.
.
You say you haven’t read it, but you seem to echo some of his central argument, which consists of perverse syllogisms like “Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are fascists!”
.
Hitler may not have worked in lockstep with the aristocracy and the industrialists, but he had nothing like the eliminationist drive against them that he had against socialists. Did I.G. Farben wind up in a concentration camp? No.
.
Fascism was a product of the right. Period.

Last month Blue Cross announced a larger increase in PA. Selective quotes from story.

Despite angry complaints from policyholders, Blue Cross says the changes are necessary because of continuing losses in the Personal Choice plans. And the state Insurance Department says there is little it can do, even after it resisted a proposal last spring to raise rates for the plans by amounts ranging from 10 percent to 58 percent.

One reason: Blue Cross sidestepped the issue by withdrawing its proposed increases. Instead, it told state officials it planned to discontinue the trio of Personal Choice plans in question, which it has offered for the last two decades, and give current policyholders two new choices instead – choices many find unattractive.

State Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario said yesterday that the dilemma faced by Blue Cross and its policyholders showed the importance of revamping state and national health insurance regulation.

Ario said state regulators lacked tools they needed to better oversee insurers’ plans and rates. And he said commercial insurers’ ability to refuse to cover less-healthy customers – which would be banned under bills that have passed the U.S. House and Senate – deserves much of the blame for the changes Blue Cross is imposing.

As Pennsylvania’s “insurer of last resort,” the state’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans are required to provide so-called guaranteed issue health insurance plans to all individuals or families, regardless of their medical conditions or histories.

The Blues’ commercial competitors “are simply able to exclude the bad risks,” Ario said. But Independence Blue Cross offers its Personal Choice plans to anyone not covered by an employer’s group plan.

The steepest rate increases will affect those now covered by Personal Choice Standard Option, the lowest-cost current plan, who choose the comparable new Personal Choice Basic. A single 55-year-old would face a 44 percent increase. A family headed by a 45-year-old would face a 60 percent increase.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/80881472.html

Great information again, Ivy.

charlie @ 2.18:
.
Did you sleep through civics class or do you honestly not realize that there’s a bit of a difference between a STATE mandate for an activity that one chooses to engage in (owning a car) and a FEDERAL mandate that applies to all adult Americans who draw breath?

Insurance rates of all kinds are on a permanent upward trend, and it’s always been that way. It won’t change, although it still pays to shop around. I have Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield and live in SE Indiana. In my area, it’s the least expensive coverage I can get. But who knows about tomorrow?

spob:
.
Our whole political and tax system is set up to screw young people. Social Security in it’s current form is little more than a generational ponzi scheme. The tax code punishes single people who opt not to have kids. We won’t let people who are 18-20 drink or carry a firearm but we force them to register for selective service, serve on juries and allow them to join the military and die for their country.

So, we don’t require people to have insurance coverage–and we don’t help people get insurance coverage–but we require certain caregivers to take care of the “indigents.” Are we ready to become a society that says, “No insurance, no medical care”? Are we ready to let the uninsured die in the streets because they couldn’t or wouldn’t purchase insurance coverage?

I view the issue as I would a tax. If you work (unless you are self-employed), you pay various local, state and federal taxes. Now, you don’t “have” to work, though it is pretty tough to get by without working. If you are young and healthy, you may not “have” to have health insurance, though it would be the wise thing to do. And if you work for an employer who offers health insurance as a benefit, you wouldn’t need to buy health insurance, But if you are not fortunate enough to get insurance through your employer, and if you are not young and healthy, then you would “need” health insurance. At that point, the government should designate the cost of providing you with health insurance as a “must”, requiring that you enter an exchange and obtain health insurance through whatever exchange you select, which could then be payable via some form of tax.
I don’t know if I am wording this correctly. In my mind I can think it through, but getting words on paper to properly convey my thoughts on this is a little difficult for me (unusual for me, as I usually have no problem yakking on and on about a subject). So I apologize in advance if my logic is twisted on this.

georgiac @ 2.20:
.
You are making an awful lot of assumptions. You are assuming that people receiving services they can’t pay for represent a major driver of medical inflation. No doubt they play some role but I suspect it pales in comparison next to the bureaucracy that is medical billing, low medicare reimbursement rates that sometimes don’t even cover the cost of the services rendered, excessively high costs for prescription drugs, etc, etc, etc.
.
It’s worth noting that none of those problems are addressed by the legislation that’s on the table. The White House cut a deal with big pharma to buy their support and intents to grant their horrible business model the protection of Federal law. Slashing more money out of medicare/medicaid will only make the aforementioned reimbursement problem worse and encourage more doctors to stop accepting patients from those systems. Forcing people into the health insurance market does nothing to address the underlying absurdity of using insurance for routine expenses (does your car insurance cover oil changes? Didn’t think so…), which no doubt helps to inflate medical costs.
.
It’s also worth pointing out that there are other services that people receive and fail to pay for. Arguably these drive up the cost for everyone else. Why isn’t Uncle Sam getting involved when my neighbor fails to pay his electric bill or defaults on his mortgage? Heck, the mortgage meltdown has done more damage to our economy in the last 18 months than the ER mandate has done since inception. Where’s the mandate for mortgage default insurance and banks verifying that you are living within your means before granting you a mortgage?

Blue Cross is raising premiums because they can. There is little competition, because health insurance cannot b e sold across state lines.

Why doesn’t Obama start with some real health insurance reform. Tort reform would lower the cost o f malpractice insurance for physicians, and put fortune-seeking plaintiffs on notice, that frivilous lawsuits are not acceptable.

Marketing all health insurance across state lines, would increase competition, and for insurers to lower premiums to risk losing business.

If Obama wants to help the people who really need medical care, then require medical practitioners and medical facilities to perform pro bono care, set at an established percentage, and nonconformance would mean less federal dollars going to these facilities and physicians.

Get a grip folks, the last time the government tried to take over our lives, it resulted in social security, which is bankrupt, Medicare, which is bankrupt, Medicaid, which is bankrupting 49 states, excluding Ben Nelson’s state, of course, food stamp usage out of control and heaven only knows what else.

Lets cancel the retirement plans of all past and present senators, congressmen and presidents and use those funds to provide some medical care.

“Why doesn’t Obama start with some real health insurance reform. Tort reform would lower the cost o f malpractice insurance for physicians, and put fortune-seeking plaintiffs on notice, that frivilous lawsuits are not acceptable.”
..
Tort reform has already been enacted in a number of states, including Texas, California and Florida to no avail. Next?
..
“Marketing all health insurance across state lines, would increase competition, and for insurers to lower premiums to risk losing business.”
..
While this probably wouldn’t hurt from a competition standpoint, I find it doubtful that it would really introduce much significant competition into the health insurance market. That said, how do you propose to solve the problem that occurs when a policy holder in State A purchases a policy from a company in State B and has a problem? Health insurance is regulated by the individual states. The insurance commissioner in State A can’t do anything to help and the insurance commissioner in State B has no impetus to help someone that is not located in his state. Most on the right that advance this argument do not want to expand the Federal government though this would be necessary to oversee and regulate this sort of problem.
..
” food stamp usage out of control”
..
There is no “food stamp” program anymore. Besides that particular nit, what do you want these people to do, starve? The SNAP program has the highest bang-for-buck of any Federal program at ~$1.66 return per dollar. Doing away with the SNAP program would be stupid, not to mention, heartless.

I see that there are right, left and those in the middle on this blog..also I am not sure if the comment about the long previous post was aimed at me, if so I apologize I didn’t realize that apparently points of common sense and history as to why things have been so costly would not be used as food for thought.
I also see that while we have had Nazi’s to food stamps discussed.. the real problem has NOT been addressed.. Why do the does this particular Insurance company feel they can raise their rates?

Can anyone tell me which of their household bills have GONE DOWN? without canceling anything?
I am not happy when ANYTHING increases, since most of us unless a Government worker have had any real increases in our pay.. I just don’t get why everyone complains about the insurance companies and doesn’t say a word about the DRUG companies (who make a LARGER profit) or the hospitals..
I do beleive that insurance companies should be made to cover those with pre-existing conditions and not drop someone when they get sick.. However, I don’t beleive in GOVERNMENT run healthcare.. although you want to see the vacation spa rooms disappear real fast that’s one way to do it.. unless your a elite Politician.. BTW we already HAVE government healthcare for those who are poor it’s called MEDICAID those that have it pay NOTHING and they get the same things as those of us who pay for ours get except NO CO PAYS.. they get it for FREE well free for them those that pay taxes are paying for it.. a government run plan for all wouldn’t change that those that qualify will still get it for FREE.. you will still pay for yours.. BTW government run things like SS which are now in the red since the government keeps using the money incorrectly and tax revenues are down during this recession is an example of just what can and will happen with government run healthcare

“BTW government run things like SS which are now in the red since the government keeps using the money incorrectly and tax revenues are down during this recession is an example of just what can and will happen with government run healthcare”
..
Social Security is not “in the red.” It actually has quite a large surplus. Had Congress actually embraced Gore’s idea of a “lock box” we would have this false view held by many today.
..
As to your meme about “government run healthcare”: That is hardly fact; it’s opinion that is not supported by the facts. Look around the modern world and see what types of health care systems are out there. They have a few things in common: All people are covered and virtually every country pays less per capita than we do in the U.S. Ask yourself, can they all be so wrong?

Re HCR and tort reform
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/limiting_medical_malpractice_liability

In 2/09 Obama had GOP leaders in for a meeting which produced the famous “I won the election” quote. While some (GOPapologistFox) outlets reported that quote out of all context, it did not happen out of all context.

It was in reply to the blanket “NO” on all Obama initiatives including health reform, from the usual obstructionists McConnell, Boehner, et al. The same policy blank slates, whom rubberstamped the failed cut taxes/cut govt ideology of the incompetent, corrupt Bush Regime. (Palin: …hey. let’s go back to THAT! Wheee!! America! Morons Only! ;^)

So the present claim that Obama’s side never tried to include the GOP on health reform, is categorically false. They mailed their no in early, and weren’t called back for any more stonewalling. Duh.

Of the proven-wrong GOP and their sheep,
Abe Lincoln would have said;
“You can fool some of the people, ALL of the time”… ;^)

I really can’t wait until the Democrats find themselves in the minority again and suddenly rediscover how dissent is patriotic and the filibuster is a valuable check on the power of the majority.
.
By the way, the fact that Obama won the election is completely irrelevant to the inner workings of the Legislative Branch. I trust that you are aware of the concept called “separation of powers”, right?
.
Glad to see you are still beating the “Bush sucks” drum too. You might want to stop for a moment and ask yourself why independent voters are fleeing the Democratic Party like rats from a sinking ship. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you’ve spent more time pointing out all the mistakes Bush made than you have trying to fix them?

…hey, let’s just listen to Palin and the failed GOP, and go back to cut taxes/cut govt that we tried for the 3 decades of the Reagan/Bush era. In fact, let’s get ANOTHER big tax cut to the wealthiest as we did in 1981 and 2001.

I mean, that worked SO well to deliver trickle down prosperity. Almost nobody is unemployed now. And the banks and health insurers, heck – they POLICED THEMSELVES!!! Get government out of the WAY by golly!

…did you know most teabaggers think Hitler was a socialist?

…can you spell i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t?

Abe;
“You can fool some of the people, ALL of the time”… ;^)

Telling me that the GOP sucks does not convince me that what the Democrats are selling is any better. You need to find a new talking point because if this is all the Democrats have to offer in November they are going to get crushed.
.
Say what you will about the GOP but I’d wager if they had the White House combined with a 60 seat super majority in the Senate and control of the House they would have spent the last 13 months checking items off the “to do” list. What have the Democrats done in that time frame? Formed circular firing squads and blamed the GOP for their failure to accomplish anything?
.
How’s that hope and change working out for you?

Kevin-

Well I apologize for coming off as snide; mea culpa.
.
As I said, I had never heard of Jonah Goldberg. Upon researching him I find him to be distasteful at best. I haven’t read his book, nor probably would I. As I said I try to stay away from the nuts on both sides. That said, he appears to be an arch-conservative who basically claims that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is some variety of imbecile. He apparently is a self avowed hater of France and a “frog-basher” to use his own words.
.
Clearly you are correct that Fascism is a creation of extreme rightwing philosophy. For all practical intents and purposes it combines a Dictatorship with a corporate economic structure and is violently at odds with communism. It claims to be against class warfare which it claims is created by a capitalist system and that said system spawned the creation of socialism and Marxism.
.
Where I would take issue with your argument is that Hitler certainly did not start out as a Fascist, his writings as well as those of his top government officials indicate that there was an ongoing struggle within the Reich for control of information and political dissent. During his rise to power, and for most of the time there after he followed what would probably best be called a dichotomy between Fascist style control of information within the political system along with strict control of manufacturing of light weapons and Socialist style economic and social programs in portions of the economy not directly connected to the German war effort. He was also strangely pro-capitalist when it came to certain manufacturing sectors of the economy, most notably the aircraft sector. Without this quazi-capitalist/command economics streak very successful aircraft such as the Junkers JU 87, 88 and 188 would never have been designed or produced in the numbers needed. Nor would other aircraft such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 or the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 which replaced it. Nor would the Germans have pioneered rocket and jet technology near the end of the war.
.
I would argue that as Hitler became more and more paranoid (1943 onward until his death) he veered further into Fascist tendencies. Recently released (the last 5 years or so) documents captured from the SS and its medical wing indicate that Hitler probably had an early onset of Parkinson’s disease causing his hand to tremor. He didn’t wish for this to be conveyed as weakness and therefore took small doses of Methamphetamine provided by his personal physician. These doses had to be increased significantly to alleviate his symptoms of Parkinson’s as the disease progressed. This resulted in increasingly paranoid and delusional behavior and an emplacement of some more Fascist forms of rule. Keep in mind that in my opinion it could be easily argued the very class warfare that Fascism claims to hate and be dedicated to eliminating was something that Hitler practiced from the very beginning, even when he was only Chancellor. He preached that the economic problems plaguing the country were the result of the “rich Jews” who stole from the hardworking German working class. After whipping up public sentiment against them he merely added anyone he didn’t like to the list of undesirables.
.
I further don’t believe that a strong argument can be made for Hitler’s support of Franco in Spain (who was a self-proclaimed Fascist) as early support of Fascism. I would argue that it was, rather, the Reich’s attempts at the perfection of the very thing that had finally broken them in WWI, combined arms. The use of aircraft as close and medium range support weapons along with the use of artillery to support infantry was pioneered by the British at the end of WWI with astounding results. The Germans realized the value of this sort of combined arms warfare especially in light of the advancements in aircraft technology that had occurred since the end of WWI. They needed a place to “practice” this if you will without actually starting a war themselves and Franco was only too happy to allow them to practice close air support tactics on his enemies in Spain. These tactics proved to be very effective in Western Europe and had they been combined with better strategy and planning probably would have had equally impressive results against the U.S.S.R..
Again this is just my read of history, take it with a grain of salt.
.
Also in response to diecash1;
Social Security is projected be bankrupt by 2035 if nothing is done to stabilize it. Secondly, government run health care really doesn’t work as well as you claim. France, Belgium and the Netherlands have all had to cut back their spending on it because it simply was eating up too much of their budget. Thirdly, this sort of system abroad is actually bringing up our domestic healthcare costs. Canada buys drugs from us for dirt cheap prices so that they can distribute them cheaply to their citizens. However, drug companies now charge people in the U.S. more for those same drugs because they are actually taking a loss when they sell them to Canada. Ever notice how Americans go to Canada for drugs but not surgery, while Canadians come here for surgery but not drugs?
Also, having lived under this sort of “government run” system I can tell you it’s not that great if you really do need medications. When I lived in New Zealand, which has a government administered health care program, I went to see my doctor because I was sick with a severe sinus infection (which just happened to be going around there that year, which has nothing to do with the system) but when I got to his office he said he had seen a lot of this but he was unable to prescribe me the drug required to treat it best because the government mandated that this drug could only be dispense by a specialist physician who worked in a hospital. So I went to the hospital and I had to see 3 other doctors and get an “ok” from each one to get kicked up a rung on the ladder to the next one before I could see the specialist. Now in a country of 4 million people that’s not so bad, but in a country where we have 350 million the wait time would be enormously longer.
.
Also, Texas is the only state you mentioned that has real “tort reform” the rest capped the damages while Texas said if you file a frivolous lawsuit, you pay all your bills plus the doctors bills to defend himself. Last time I heard anything about it Texas was the only state in the Union where high risk doctors like OBGYN’s and Anesthesiologists were flocking to, not out of. Here in Ohio we lose hundreds of these specialists a year because they retire or move elsewhere to avoid ridiculous lawsuits that in some cases are hundreds of millions of dollars. Even if a doctor screws up (which they do and should be held accountable for) and kills a patient how is that patients family entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars? Or even tens of millions? If a doctor screws up you should be entitled to what that family member could be reasonably expected to earn over the rest of their working life, plus maybe $100,000 in punitive damages and not a dime more.

Very good!!

Legamenti D’amore

Texas is the only state you mentioned that has real “tort reform” the rest capped the damages while Texas said if you file a frivolous lawsuit, you pay all your bills plus the doctors bills to defend himself. Last time I heard anything about it Texas was the only state in the Union where high risk doctors like OBGYN’s and Anesthesiologists were flocking to, not out of. Here in Ohio we lose hundreds of these specialists a year because they retire or move elsewhere to avoid ridiculous lawsuits that in some cases are hundreds of millions of dollars. Even if a doctor screws up (which they do and should be held accountable for) and kills a patient how is that patients family entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars? Or even tens of millions? If a doctor screws up you should be entitled to what that family member could be reasonably expected to earn over the rest of their working life, plus maybe $100,000 in punitive damages and not a dime more.

http://www.studioesoterico.it

“Social Security is projected be bankrupt by 2035 if nothing is done to stabilize it.”
..
This statement is demonstrably false, not to mention laughable. With no adjustments or changes, even if the trust fund ran dry, current taxes would still pay ~78% of estimated social security benefits in 2035-40. I would hardly call that bankrupt. What you are hearing (and apparently believing) is that there is some great “crisis” with social security and this claim fails to stand up to scrutiny. Benefit levels and/or eligibility dates may need to be modified slightly but there is no crisis. Much the same is true for Medicare. If we solve the health care price problem, we solve much of the problem with Medicare. Ezra Klein has written quite a bit about it.
See article here
..
As for tort reform, Texas has seen neither any significant reduction in medical liability insurance rates nor any reduction in health care costs to consumers. As such, tort reform does not appear to have provided much benefit.
..
As to your contention that damages awarded in suits should be limited to expected earnings plus $100K: It really depends upon the circumstances of the mistake. Some mistakes may require lifetime care and associated expenses and that should be covered. I think that the current jury system, with judicial review of the award is generally sufficient. A crackdown on frivolous lawsuits (did someone say Orly Taitz?) would, however be a welcome change.
..
Regarding your New Zealand anecdote: No system is perfect but almost every other country in the modern world covers everyone at a lower per capita cost and many countries achieve better results. Surely you would agree that we could vastly improve our system and price competition with the addition of a real public option, yes?

mikew67:

Please clarify for me how the GOP are obstructionists?
.
Your claims ring hollow, because the GOP didn’t have the power until Scott Brown’s swearing in to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do. The Democrats could have declared that the pelican replace the eagle as a symbol of the United States if they wanted to and Republicans could have done nothing to stop it because they didn’t hold enough seats.
.
Democrats had a a 58-40 majority over Republicans in the senate, with two independents who tended to vote with the Democrats. While also holding 235-198 majority in the House with there being 2 unfilled seats.
.
This means that even if all the Republicans went home and never showed up the Democrats would still have enough votes to pass any bill they wanted, they didn’t need any GOP support (although they probably would have been short a quorum in the house). The problem was the Democrats couldn’t agree among themselves about HCR! Any other claims are patently false because the numbers don’t lie. Infighting in the Democratic party is what has led to the current impasse, not GOP opposition.
.
Of course this might just be due to the fact that over 2/3 of Americans oppose this bill and people in the House and Senate value their jobs more than we generally give them credit for…

Diecash1:

Well we certainly agree that a crackdown of frivolous lawsuits would be welcome.

The numbers on social security vary wildly depending on who does the analysis and the assumptions made on revenue. MSNBC’s report that the system will take in 5 times more money in 2015 that it does this year seems to me to be based on unreasonable assumptions such as that we can double our exports by 2012 and that increased taxes will result in more revenue, a supposition that has been proven repeatedly to be false. I’m going leave it at that because I believe that assumptions that go out 75 years (as required by law) as to how the economy will fair over that long of a time period are an exercise in futility.
As for tort reform, while this is totally anecdotal I happened to ask my doctor about this when I was in for a physical late last year. He told me that his practice, which consists of himself, another doctor, four nurses and two secretaries/medical billing people pays a hair over $250,000 per year in malpractice insurance, and he’s just a general practitioner (Clearly he buys the best insurance he can, and who can blame him considering the cost of even a frivolous lawsuit?). He had at that time, 237 patients on his rolls and his associate saw 177 that’s 414 patients total. 250,000/414 = 603.8647 or $603.87 per patient; which means that he has to cover his costs he has to add an average of $603.87 to each patients total bill over the year to cover his insurance cost and avoid losing money. Using just myself as an example, I pay for private insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield and as a 25 year old smoker I pay $207.76 per month. That’s almost the cost for 3 months of my insurance premiums he has to add to my bills! That’s insane, and it’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Finally, I must answer your question on a public option with an emphatic “no” because of the rest of the provisions in the bill. A public option does nothing to address cost no matter who says that it does. All it does is change who pays the bills (also a mandate for coverage is a bad idea and probably not constitutional).
I would only support a public option because it would be comparatively cheap and not cover millions and millions of people given the following conditions:
1) A mandated standardized form for healthcare providers to fill out and send to insurance companies. The current system requires an army of people to push paper and the most recent statistics I’ve seen on CNN and in the NY Times (who both support HRC) suggest that this accounts for close to 1/3 of all expenditures on healthcare at the provider level (i.e. a hospital). \
2) Previous mentioned tort reform, though you certainly have a point that if a doctor puts a patient in a coma for 30 years that should be covered as well, as should any other medical costs incurred by the malpractice. But families should not be able to get rich, and enrich some sleazy tort lawyer who takes 1/3 of what they get from a lawsuit because a doctor made an honest mistake. Keep in mind that John Edwards made his millions by claiming that natural births caused certain forms of palsy, and lawsuits brought by he and other attorneys caused the rate of cesarean section to jump by almost 27% because doctors were so scared of a lawsuit which is virtually impossible to defend against because the charge is so broad. Doctors who act in good faith but are victim to a quirk of personal physiology or just random chance should be exempt from lawsuits, as should drug companies who get and FDA approval. FDA approval should be a bulletproof vest against lawsuits for a drug company. There is absolutely no way to determine all of the possible side effects that might occur when the sample size of people receiving the drug goes from thousands to millions. It’s just not possible.
3) Insurance reform and portability. We should all be able to shop for health insurance the same way we do for car insurance if we choose to operate a motor vehicle. Also prohibiting preexisting conditions from coverage should be banned.
4) Technology needs to be injected to bring costs down. Insurance companies are usually WAY ahead of government supplement programs in use of new imaging technology. Not always but usually. There is no reason that someone with sinusitis, such as my mother should have to have six x-rays of her sinuses before Medicare will pay for a CAT scan that found the problem and showed a solution in one, yes one, use. Taxpayers paid for five x-rays that were pointless and even the doctor said they were pointless and he would like to use a CAT scan, but Medicare wouldn’t cover it until he ordered another five rounds of x-rays to prove that they couldn’t get the right answer from x-ray technology. 5) Doctors need to be fairly paid by any government system, otherwise they pass the cost of business along to those of us with private insurance which is unacceptable. Medicare dictates what it will pay which in most cases is far below market value, I point to my previous post about the blood work for which they paid less than $13 on a $271 bill. 6) While the government might pay for this sort of “public option” insurance they should not be allowed to dictate terms to doctors. Doctors found gouging or otherwise taking advantage of the system should be harshly punished, but the idea that doctors are routinely performing unnecessary amputations or other dangerous procedures to gouge the government is a baseless, blatant and vile lie which fortunately hasn’t been promulgated here but is a common claim among the ultra left. The vast, vast majority of doctors are good people who take their oath very seriously and would never order meaningless procedures. That said they do order a lot of tests that are probably not needed but that’s because in the current climate they are terrified of bankrupting lawsuits because they missed something that was a statistical anomaly (see point 2).
6) A serious look at the fraud and waste in Medicare/Medicaid is required before I could support an “expansion” of either these programs or government health programs in general. There are billions and billions in fraudulent claims to both of these entities, mostly in my mind because the bureaucracies involved are simply too large to be “quick on their toes” and find ways to reduce this problem and prosecute those commit these crimes.
I have no problem with some of what is currently proposed, but I fail to see how it will reduce the cost at ground level which is where I firmly believe we should start. If we can cut the overhead of doctors that will cut the overhead of insurance companies and if they are allowed to compete in the way car insurance companies do you won’t have 39% hikes in fees because the company that does that will be undercut and become uncompetitive against their competition who are offering the same services for less cost. This would result in many people who currently lack coverage or don’t have enough coverage to purchase what they need. Once that is done, and only then, can I even begin to support the government getting involved with a “public option” that covers those who are down on their luck.

With all of that said I’m sure there are a host of other reforms that are needed as well.

Diecash1:

I apologize for this post script, but I didn’t have time to read my papers all the way through this morning. As evidence of my claim that Social Security projections have serious problems, (I picked one somewhere in the middle in a previous post with which you took issue) USA Today reported today that Social Security is almost bankrupt right now. I disagree, because I think their projections are far too conservative. But this is what I mean when I say it’s difficult if not impossible to figure this out for sure because short and long term economic trends are very difficult to model and many of them assume a linear progression (much like people did with housing or tech stocks until those bubbles burst).
.
The question is do they have a flat line projection or one that takes a steep angle up or down.