House passes Senate health care bill

[Caged Great]

Actually, this could really bite the republicans in the butt if this becomes really popular, for example people's lives get saved/improved because they didn't get dropped for a pre-existing condition, or not having access to insurance etc.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Actually, this could really bite the republicans in the butt if this becomes really popular, for example people's lives get saved/improved because they didn't get dropped for a pre-existing condition, or not having access to insurance etc.

Or if their dire predictions of everyone's insurance costs skyrocketing don't come true.

Of course, the big problem is that they lost. Nobody likes a loser--and especially a SORE loser, which is what they're starting to look like.

[CaptainCrunch]

If your going to make health insurance mandatory then you might as well do what we had in Alberta and just add a health premium to everyone's tax. and then let insurance companies sell premium medical coverage.

This whole fining system if you don't have health insurance is to me silly and an extra layer of beaurocracy.

Just tax it and let the IRS deal with it.

[starseed]

Someone told me that this will actually now give the senate a chance to add in the public option. Is that true? That doesn't seem right...

[Cactus Jack]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Actually, this could really bite the republicans in the butt if this becomes really popular, for example people's lives get saved/improved because they didn't get dropped for a pre-existing condition, or not having access to insurance etc.

I think it will work for the better for the States too, I feel people are just complaining about the unknown and have really bit into the line about "socialized medicine." It's ridiculous. If you're wealthy, you have nothing to worry about, really. If you're poor, you just have to pay a subsidized premium to finally receive insurance. And what's the difference if you tax that amount or fine people, it's just a matter of semantics. People need to relax and realize that people receiving medical coverage is a wonderful thing and outweighs the initial shock of "we have to pay for something."

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The media likes to make it seem more dramatic than it is. This is just part of the byzantine and clunky procedure of creating law in the U.S. The House will vote by the end of the week and the outcome will be the same.

It's about as likely to be meaningful as the blinkered constitutional challenge.

I actually think the GOP is making a huge mistake here. They've cast themselves as the "party of NO," and in the process have alienated the center in order to appeal to their shrinking base. This is, in fact, exactly what I would have counseled them NOT to do after Obama's win.

In the meantime, Obama's numbers are up, health care's numbers are up, the media narrative is that Obama is a reformer (remember, people don't care about the details) and the Republicans are obstructionists.

If they continue down this path, they've basically handed Obama another term. And they had a huge opportunity when he failed to immediately deliver on his promises of reform. Who advises these nimrods?

I do. Occasionally. In my spare time. What can I say, I dont really like them very much.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by starseed

Someone told me that this will actually now give the senate a chance to add in the public option. Is that true? That doesn't seem right...

Well, they'll probably hold off on stuff like that for the time being I'd assume (already got the opposition riled up), but within 10 years, I'd almost expect that to happen if the Dems are still in.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If your going to make health insurance mandatory then you might as well do what we had in Alberta and just add a health premium to everyone's tax. and then let insurance companies sell premium medical coverage.

This whole fining system if you don't have health insurance is to me silly and an extra layer of beaurocracy.

Just tax it and let the IRS deal with it.

Looks like that is the plan Captain........

http://www.johndennis2010.com/blog/2...new-irs-agents

and........the IRS has purchased new shotguns for their investigative unit. I had no idea they were trained for combat...?

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...UlM_JoREkncsCA

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The media likes to make it seem more dramatic than it is. This is just part of the byzantine and clunky procedure of creating law in the U.S. The House will vote by the end of the week and the outcome will be the same.

It's about as likely to be meaningful as the blinkered constitutional challenge.

I actually think the GOP is making a huge mistake here. They've cast themselves as the "party of NO," and in the process have alienated the center in order to appeal to their shrinking base. This is, in fact, exactly what I would have counseled them NOT to do after Obama's win.

In the meantime, Obama's numbers are up, health care's numbers are up, the media narrative is that Obama is a reformer (remember, people don't care about the details) and the Republicans are obstructionists.

If they continue down this path, they've basically handed Obama another term. And they had a huge opportunity when he failed to immediately deliver on his promises of reform. Who advises these nimrods?

No kidding.

The way I read it this is more for budget purposes, and has nothing to do with the actual policies.

The Republicans have been morons since Obama got elected. This is completely normal behavior.

[Azure]

Its actually quite hilarious how people think this is a good 'plan.'

The insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

A couple things people are forgetting. Or they don't understand it. Especially Americans. France and Germany have a highly competitive market when it comes to insurance companies. Only a fool would argue that competition is bad for business. The secret is that their 'market' is based on an artificial scale.

Lets take the French system for example, often said to be the BEST healthcare system in the world.

75% of the cost is covered by the Federal Government. While that DOES account for a lot, it still leaves millions of dollars in healthcare costs out there for the individual to pay. This is where the insurance companies come in. The remaining 25% of the healthcare costs are covered by private insurance companies who are in it to make money. Not non-profit like the Swiss system. They're in it to MAKE money. And from all accounts these evil insurance companies who are in it to make money do a better job than ANY insurance company in the US. I'll explain why down below.

There are few things about the 'private' side of the health care system in France that I don't think people know.

• The private insurance companies that cover the 25% of the cost are free to set their OWN price. There is absolutely no government meddling involved(heh, what a direct kick in the junk to the freedom in the 'land of the free'). There is ABSOLUTELY no legislation restricting totally free competition when it comes to the remaining 25% of the cost. None. Zero. Nadda.
• There are a dozen providers. Perhaps even more. People in France are free to CHOOSE, because these providers are nation wide. Not limited to a particular region or territory. NATION-wide.
• They set up a plan with a customer that is tailored to his needs and his pocketbook. They can offer you 100% of everything, exclude some things, set ceilings on how much they'll cover, include a deductible amount, cover only really major expenses, or whatever they and the potential customer work out. Again, a lot of choice, and NO government meddling.
• Since there are no limits on prices and plans, there is no problem with "pre-existing conditions." Instead of refusing you, they'll just take that into account in their proposal. Buying medical insurance ALWAYS involves filling out a fairly extensive medical questionnaire, not only so they can see what your needs are but also so they can better evaluate their risks. Again, no government meddling involved.

What does it equal? Along with the public system it equals a top 5 health care system in the world.

Now you're going to ask, how is the American system different. Well, here is what I've come up with.

• The insurance commissioner in each state basically has absolute power over whether new insurance companies can be created and if existing ones can continue operating. Most if not all use it to keep the existing insurers' monopoly/oligopoly status intact. You'll notice that whenever a state starts taking a look at rate hikes, it's always the Attorney General's office, never the Insurance Commissioner's, despite the fact that they have the powers to approve and veto rate hikes.
• Then there's the mandates. Many states mandate certain procedures and medications be covered, despite the fact that only a tiny minority of people, or even none in my demographic would ever use them. But because of anti-discrimination laws, they can't charge less for people with lower risk of filing claims like car insurers can. The best they can do is weighted average out the premiums over the age range and gender, for everyone in that group. And they have to charge more even to cover impossibilities. In other words people are paying for substance abuse coverage even though a HUGE portion of the population doesn't need it. The insurance commissioners have something to do with keeping rates equal as well - if one insurer wants to have absolutely excellent customer service, well, that's too bad because it means that less than the required minimum percentage of premiums will be spent on actual medical care (they set that percentage, often but not always on instruction from the legislature). With almost no differentiation between private insurers, prices naturally reach equality.
• As a result, people are left with maybe 1, maybe 2 providers, and both of them do their best to make the most amount of money. There is no competition involved like the French system where private insurance companies can without regulation and meddling set their prices, what they cover, etc, etc. This creates a HUGE monopoly on the system. Of course Washington is so overrun with lobbyists that they really don't give a crap. Obamacare, if you actually look at the finer details was very much influenced by the insurance companies. Hell, the Senate Bill was practically written by an insurance lobbyist group in Washington.
• And of course, you can't sell insurance across state lines, which is again half legislature, half commissioners, depends on the state. So there goes a whole potential industry, disallowing economies of scale and any innovation that might occur. Kinda makes the people who said tort reform isn't important look a bit stupid if you bother to pay attention to how the more successful European systems function.
• The way I understand it, despite not being able to sell insurance across state lines, there are still a select few insurance providers in the US. They just operate separately in each state. Result? A nation wide monopoly with a HUGE amount of restrictions involved.
• And we haven't even talked about the Federal Government's involvement. Between HIPPA's elimination of common sense (and introduction of paperwork which has probably felled a forest by now), and managed care, and the HMO Act...etc, etc, etc.

Obamacare does NOTHING to solve any of these MAJOR problems. It just adds a whole other layer of government stupidity in an attempt to fix a system that badly needs to be BLOWN UP, and built up from scratch.

But hey, I guess some healthcare is better than no healthcare when you're on the way down.

Too bad Americans don't expect a better system. Its sad really, because they could do SO much better.

[amorak]

ohhh man, you're so far out to lunch Azure it's getting a bit sad to come in here and read your posts...

[Gozer]

The Republicans may have succeeded.

They saw reform and pissed and moaned until it was unrecognizably watered down, but Obama was so desperate to make a difference that he was willing to pas this abortion of reform.


The basic problem remains unaddressed: the health care - health insurance industry is unregulated and therefore has charges that bear no reasonable relationship to their costs. They FIX prices, and do so only because they hold an exemption from anti trust laws. It's the most stacked deck in all of America.

[Gozer]

What will this bill actually do?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35986235...h-health_care/

[Cactus Jack]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its actually quite hilarious how people think this is a good 'plan.' The insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

But hey, I guess some healthcare is better than no healthcare when you're on the way down. Too bad Americans don't expect a better system. Its sad really, because they could do SO much better.

As for the first part, they've been laughing all the way to the bank years if not decades by primarily charging expensive premiums for coverage they never had to pay out on. Anybody could get rich offering insurance for something you quite often wouldn't have to spend a dime for.

Secondly, this is a good first step in the right direction. I don't think anyone was foolhardy enough to believe all your system's problems would be cured at once. This system provides insurance to everyone and over the years can be ammended to improve it. This is not the end game.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by amorak

ohhh man, you're so far out to lunch Azure it's getting a bit sad to come in here and read your posts...

Prove me wrong. Its tough enough to actually read through the vaguely defined explanation of the different health care systems in the world and actually get the gist of what they mean.

I could be wrong, but from people I've talked too that is the understanding I have of how healthcare in those two countries work.

But hey, I love your driveby posts. They really add a lot to the conversation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The Republicans may have succeeded.

Tough to say right now. After November if the Democrats solidify their hold on the government they could add more reform. Hopefully proper reform. I'm not really optimistic, but you never know.

I think it ALL depends on what happens in November.

They saw reform and pissed and moaned until it was unrecognizably watered down, but Obama was so desperate to make a difference that he was willing to pas this abortion of reform.

Pissed and moaned and did nothing to come up with a better alternative.

The basic problem remains unaddressed: the health care - health insurance industry is unregulated and therefore has charges that bear no reasonable relationship to their costs. They FIX prices, and do so only because they hold an exemption from anti trust laws. It's the most stacked deck in all of America.

Unregulated or regulated the wrong way?

I agree though. If you take the time to read how the health insurance industry in the US, its amazing how much of a monopoly and choke-hold these select few companies hold all across America, and how stupid regulation, or the lack of is letting them commit bloody murder day in and day out.

When I talk to friends in the states they always say. "Well sure, they covered my procedure, but I had to go through hell for that to happen."

I look at this bill as more of corporate-fascist-obtrusive-backroom dealing piece of garbage.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I don't want to address every part of that lengthy post, Azure(EDIT: I meant the first lengthy post )--except to say that I agree with part of it but not all of it. In the end, it's splitting hairs, because you are of course correct that it would have been far better for the U.S. to finally tear off the bandaid and build a simple, efficient health care system from scratch. It's obvious to everyone--including, I suspect, people in government.

But the way US governance works is so clunky and byzantine, that it really is possible that this is the best they could do. Part of the reason is that the system offers no incentive for compromise. It's a zero-sum game: either you're the architect of change or you're working to reject change altogether. This bill is a compromise, in a sense--but it's the wrong kind of compromise--it's a compromise between the positions of "do something" and "do nothing." So... in some areas it does something, and in others it does nothing. It likely won't harm anybody, but nor will it be nearly as far-reaching as it needs to be.

There are two problems with health care in the U.S.: cost and equality. The only one the insurance companies care about is cost--they don't care what the government does in terms of equality as long as they can maintain their inflationary grip on the health care sector. They got what they wanted. This bill provides equality, but does nothing to address cost.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

What will this bill actually do?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35986235...h-health_care/

A few things stand out.

I'm not seeing any insurance reform. None at all?

And secondly,

American Indians don’t have to buy insurance. Those with religious objections or a financial hardship can also avoid the requirement. And if you would pay more than 8 percent of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage.

How many people are going to throw the religious argument?

And thirdly.

Those who are exempt, or under 30, can buy a policy that only pays for catastrophic medical costs. It must allow for three primary care visits a year as well.

I'm thinking this is a step in the right direction.

Then again it does nothing to deal with the ACTUAL cost of that policy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

As for the first part, they've been laughing all the way to the bank years if not decades by primarily charging expensive premiums for coverage they never had to pay out on.

See, that needs to change. Without it you're never going to be able to control costs.

Secondly, this is a good first step in the right direction. I don't think anyone was foolhardy enough to believe all your system's problems would be cured at once. This system provides insurance to everyone and over the years can be ammended to improve it. This is not the end game.

Could be, but I believe in the law of unintended consequences. With 2,000+ pages of legislation I'm sure they'll be a lot of unintended consequences.

I honestly think you have to give it more time. You gotta work the system to see if it improves.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't want to address every part of that lengthy post, Azure(EDIT: I meant the first lengthy post )--except to say that I agree with part of it but not all of it. In the end, it's splitting hairs, because you are of course correct that it would have been far better for the U.S. to finally tear off the bandaid and build a simple, efficient health care system from scratch. It's obvious to everyone--including, I suspect, people in government.

But the way US governance works is so clunky and byzantine, that it really is possible that this is the best they could do. Part of the reason is that the system offers no incentive for compromise. It's a zero-sum game: either you're the architect of change or you're working to reject change altogether. This bill is a compromise, in a sense--but it's the wrong kind of compromise--it's a compromise between the positions of "do something" and "do nothing." So... in some areas it does something, and in others it does nothing. It likely won't harm anybody, but nor will it be nearly as far-reaching as it needs to be.

Well, it does cost money. Outside of that if you get past the unconstitutional arguments being thrown around it really isn't changing that much.

There are two problems with health care in the U.S.: cost and equality. The only one the insurance companies care about is cost--they don't care what the government does in terms of equality as long as they can maintain their inflationary grip on the health care sector. They got what they wanted. This bill provides equality, but does nothing to address cost.

Pretty much.