Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Seattle Times)   Insurer promises to keep some parts of Obamacare even if the law is struck down. What's the catch?   (seattletimes.nwsource.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, UnitedHealth Group, obamacare, health care law, insurance companies  
•       •       •

2796 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:25 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-06-11 10:23:55 AM  
The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.
 
2012-06-11 10:27:23 AM  

Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.


I wonder why
 
2012-06-11 10:31:03 AM  
Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.
 
2012-06-11 10:31:18 AM  

Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.


the catch is that it gives them the ability to raise rates.

they are new services, you don't get them for free.
 
2012-06-11 10:34:51 AM  
I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.
 
2012-06-11 10:38:23 AM  

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.


Exactly, it means more money
 
2012-06-11 10:39:18 AM  
Roberts, Scalia, et al., are very cynically trying to come up w/the decision which will negatively affect Obama's reelection chances the most. It is as obvious as the sun in the sky.
 
2012-06-11 10:39:27 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.


Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.
 
2012-06-11 10:42:11 AM  

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.


Yeah, they'll keep these provisions but clearly the costs of them will factor into their pricing decisions.
 
2012-06-11 10:44:06 AM  

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.


And, aside from pregnancy, the 25 and under crowd don't often have particularly expensive ailments. Combine that with free preventative care, which means they're more likely to get something checked out early rather than wait until it gets bad, and there's good odds the positive PR will make this profitable.

It looks like a sensible move on United's part, a win-win decision. Let's see how they screw it up.
 
2012-06-11 10:50:25 AM  

CPennypacker: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

I wonder why


They think the plan is too blah?
 
2012-06-11 10:52:30 AM  

CPennypacker: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

I wonder why


When one political party is committed to waging a campaign of FUD to health care overhaul, this will happen. Go figure.

//Not to mention outright misinformation and lies.
 
2012-06-11 11:01:39 AM  
Insurer promises

Everything after this phrase is meaningless.
 
2012-06-11 11:03:15 AM  

derpdeederp: Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.


Which companies were those, exactly?
 
2012-06-11 11:03:50 AM  
Good for them. The parts they agreed to are all sensible things that, frankly, insurance companies should have been doing for years now.
 
2012-06-11 11:07:46 AM  

CPennypacker: I wonder why


Because everybody wants everybody else to pay for their stuff, that's why.

The insurers like the added business it promises and people like the mandates regarding adult children and uncapped coverage, but nobody likes the individual mandate because that's where you start talking about somebody actually having to pay for this shiat.

It's just like California and their screwed up laws. Everybody wants a ton of benefits but nobody ever wants to be held responsible for paying for any of it.
 
2012-06-11 11:13:06 AM  
I thought of something the other day. The principle argument against Obamacare is that the government, for the first time, is forcing people to engage in commercial activity or be punished; that it is an unprecedented use of the commerce clause to create the very commerce to regulate.

But any person over the age of say 60 (in short, anyone not already covered by medicare), has ALREADY been required by the government to purchase health care. For decades the law has required parents to send their kids to school, and it has required children to be vaccinated in order to attend. How many people complain about those regulations that force people to purchase products from their private pediatrician?

/OK, how many sane, non-blonde bimbos?
 
2012-06-11 11:13:50 AM  
PPACA (Obamacare) requires maternity coverage to be standard in all individual and family plans. United Healthcare does not offer this now, and will not offer it if the law is struck down. In Florida, if you want to have kids, you better hope you work for a large employer, or your husband does, or that you'll be poor and destitute enough to qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise you risk bankruptcy just to reproduce. If you and the hubs are both free-lancers who do pretty well for yourselves, or if you're a semi-successful freelancer and not intending to marry your babydaddy, you're SOL.

Obviously this stifles entrepreneurship, etc.
 
2012-06-11 11:13:51 AM  
Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.

Because honestly, the GOP hasn't thought things through. They haven't thought past repeal. But the fact is, if health care reform is overturned, the nation's healthcare system will still be broken and in need of major reform. If something can't go on, it won't - and eventually we will have universal health care. One way or another.
 
2012-06-11 11:17:29 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: derpdeederp: Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.

Which companies were those, exactly?


AARP for sure. Im guessing for non-profit status or just because the government loves the old people voting block, not really sure which other ones.

/Uncle is national director of AARP, get some insight sometimes.
 
2012-06-11 11:19:16 AM  

Karac: I thought of something the other day. The principle argument against Obamacare is that the government, for the first time, is forcing people to engage in commercial activity or be punished; that it is an unprecedented use of the commerce clause to create the very commerce to regulate.

But any person over the age of say 60 (in short, anyone not already covered by medicare), has ALREADY been required by the government to purchase health care. For decades the law has required parents to send their kids to school, and it has required children to be vaccinated in order to attend. How many people complain about those regulations that force people to purchase products from their private pediatrician?

/OK, how many sane, non-blonde bimbos?


The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.
 
2012-06-11 11:20:07 AM  

ComicBookGuy: Roberts, Scalia, et al., are very cynically trying to come up w/the decision which will negatively affect Obama's reelection chances the most. It is as obvious as the sun in the sky.


You mean like the Heller decision they gave in 2008 that handed Obama the election by placing gun bans forever off the table, thus taking the wind out of the NRA's anti-Obama sails?
 
2012-06-11 11:23:25 AM  
Good for them! They don't have to have a massive expensive federal bureaucracy forcing them to something.
Maybe we all can choose do more without a massive expensive federal bureaucracy forcing us. Maybe if we weren't forced to pay for massive federal bureaucracies and they weren't weren't so farking inefficient and expensive we could afford to.
 
2012-06-11 11:24:12 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.

Because honestly, the GOP hasn't thought things through. They haven't thought past repeal. But the fact is, if health care reform is overturned, the nation's healthcare system will still be broken and in need of major reform. If something can't go on, it won't - and eventually we will have universal health care. One way or another.


I wouldnt be opposed to paying a 10-15% income tax similar to social security/Medicaid for a single payer system.
 
2012-06-11 11:29:24 AM  

Karac: is that the government, for the first time, is forcing people to engage in commercial activity or be punished


Not true. Everything from car insurance to Macbooks are required purchases.
 
2012-06-11 11:30:26 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.

Because honestly, the GOP hasn't thought things through. They haven't thought past repeal. But the fact is, if health care reform is overturned, the nation's healthcare system will still be broken and in need of major reform. If something can't go on, it won't - and eventually we will have universal health care. One way or another.


Do you really, really think that is what will happen? How many years have we gone without a comprehensive, simple solution? Do you really think the light bulb will magically go off, and our government will recognize the solution that's been staring them in the face forever?

No, we are going to muddle along while Congress dithers, health care costs contiue to spiral, the population ages and demands more for less, and things just go from bad to worse.

//Cynical today.
 
2012-06-11 11:30:47 AM  

Karac: But any person over the age of say 60 (in short, anyone not already covered by medicare), has ALREADY been required by the government to purchase health care.


No they don't.

For decades the law has required parents to send their kids to school


That's at the state level. States have powers that the federal government doesn't have.

, and it has required children to be vaccinated in order to attend. How many people complain about those regulations that force people to purchase products from their private pediatrician?


Again, that's at the state level. The state could in theory require you to purchase a left-handed yo-yo under it's general police powers. The federal government *DOESN'T* have general police powers, however: It is limited to only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution.

In this case, Congress and the President used the Commerce Clause to justify the individual mandate, which says that Congress can regulate commerce in and among the states. However, there is literally *ZERO* precedent in over 200 years of Supreme Court decisions that says Congress has the power to regulate the absence of commerce. The problem is that if the court buys that argument, then there is nothing that Congress can't do, and it ceases to be a government of limited powers.

Why is this a big deal if states can do it? Because you've got a choice: If you didn't like it when Massachusetts voted it in, you could simply 'vote with your feet' and move to another state with little or no difficulty.
 
2012-06-11 11:31:04 AM  
had unitedhealth in NY.

despite having the best plan possible with prescription coverage, nothing I ever needed was covered (antibiotics, advair, aciphex, etc)

unitedhealth only offered to cover generics (for advair no generic existed), but usually my copay for the generic was more than what the drugs cost.

scumbags.
 
2012-06-11 11:31:25 AM  

Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.


You know, except for the mandate.
 
2012-06-11 11:31:54 AM  

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.


Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old. Those are the people who didn't have coverage (because they didn't want it) that Obama was trying to force to pay for a service they didn't want.
 
2012-06-11 11:32:15 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Not true. Everything from car insurance to Macbooks are required purchases.


I don't have a Macbook and my brother is 63 and has never had car insurance.
 
2012-06-11 11:39:43 AM  

Bullseyed: derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.

Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old. Those are the people who didn't have coverage (because they didn't want it) that Obama was trying to force to pay for a service they didn't want.


o rly? Friend of mine has rheumatoid arthritis and is 31. She had the condition throughout her 20s. The condition would have cost her buku bucks if she hadn't been covered when it was diagnosed. Look up the cost of Humera sometime. That's one of the lower-cost things she's on.
 
2012-06-11 11:40:33 AM  

whyRpeoplesostupid: derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.

Exactly, it means more money


This was the only real change for me... my older son is 19 going on 20, and he really needed this for several reasons.

I don't have a problem with health care reform, I'm just not a fan of supposed government subsidization, that ultimately comes out of my pocket, anyway. The money shuffle gave proponents a speaking point about lower costs for everybody, while the big elephant in the room gets ignored - the money the government "chips in" comes from somewhere - mostly middle class pockets.

What I've always wanted to see is reform that reduces costs to consumers and insurance companies. $3000/night is ridiculous for a hospital room. MRI and CAT Scan equipment is expensive, but at the rates they charge, often working on 24 hour schedules (at least at our local hospital), they have long ago paid for that equipment. Tort reform can also help... malpractice should be about getting incompetent doctors out of their practices, not paying off people (though a proper settlement is fair).

In other words, let's bring some sanity back to health care.
 
2012-06-11 11:46:45 AM  
You do realize what this means. This means the decision to overturn Obamacare is already a done deal between the SCOTUS and big business.

This announcement is just a preemptory strike against organized outrage against the decision when it is announced. Not everybody will have cake but some will have cake to eat. And most Americans feel as long as they get their slice, then screw the other guy.
 
2012-06-11 11:58:35 AM  

Ned Stark: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

You know, except for the mandate.


and that part about insuring pre-ex conditions not likely to live through this...insuring sick people is bad for business.
 
2012-06-11 11:59:06 AM  

dittybopper: Why is this a big deal if states can do it? Because you've got a choice: If you didn't like it when Massachusetts voted it in, you could simply 'vote with your feet' and move to another state with little or no difficulty.


So if I live in Massachusetts and don't like it that the state requires my kid to be vaccinated in order to attend the school it requires me to send them to, then I can just move us all to another state? Perhaps you could inform me of this state where these requirements are not enforced.

And Obamacare isn't regulating commerce that doesn't exist. Everyone purchases health care at one point or another. If nothing else, the odds of you interacting with a doctor when you're born or when you get close to dying approach 100%.
 
2012-06-11 12:00:39 PM  

LesserEvil: I don't have a problem with health care reform, I'm just not a fan of supposed government subsidization, that ultimately comes out of my pocket, anyway. The money shuffle gave proponents a speaking point about lower costs for everybody, while the big elephant in the room gets ignored - the money the government "chips in" comes from somewhere - mostly middle class pockets.


The thing is that for people with pre-existing conditions (PREX), they will inevitably need money chipped from sources other than themselves and their family to help cover their costs no matter what. Health care is far beyond the reach of anybody not stinking rich to pay on their own; people whose annual costs are in the top 1% of all Americans average $120,000. What person in their right mind would sell somebody whose expected costs were in the six figures an insurance policy for less than that?
 
2012-06-11 12:02:24 PM  
Anyone who uses the term Obamacare is a partisan hack. It's such a terrible term and is a great example of the poison that has infected modern US politics.

The health care plan as it was is nothing like what Obama wanted and got stripped down to pretty much 99% match the health care plan the Republicans proposed in the 90s. It's a great example of how ineffective Obama has been to his supposed base. Always caving in to what the GOP wants for the sake of "compromise" then taking the blame for when it's shiat. He's a perfect president for the GOP to have in office.
 
2012-06-11 12:07:36 PM  

Twigz221: Anyone who uses the term Obamacare is a partisan hack. It's such a terrible term and is a great example of the poison that has infected modern US politics.


I used to think the same thing, now I don't mind the term as much. Kind of bounces off the tongue. Also,

"Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.
 
2012-06-11 12:08:11 PM  
Alexrod, pornstar, M.D.
 
2012-06-11 12:09:59 PM  

Twigz221: Anyone who uses the term Obamacare is a partisan hack. It's such a terrible term and is a great example of the poison that has infected modern US politics.

The health care plan as it was is nothing like what Obama wanted and got stripped down to pretty much 99% match the health care plan the Republicans proposed in the 90s. It's a great example of how ineffective Obama has been to his supposed base. Always caving in to what the GOP wants for the sake of "compromise" then taking the blame for when it's shiat. He's a perfect president for the GOP to have in office.


He was ineffective in stopping the Republicans from boycotting hearings on health care reform. Obama had to compromise unless you felt that allowing a boycott to stop all reform was a better alternative.

Obama has tried to do pretty much everything he said he would do and accomplished much of it while Congress did everything to stop him.

Why isn't Gitmo closed down and detainees tried in criminal courts instead of military tribunals? Ask Congress. They passed an amendment to a war funding bill that prevented closing down Gitmo, prevented transferring the detainees to US soil, prevented them from being tried in US criminal courts. Yeah, Obama was ineffective. Congress wasn't. And I can blame Congress because they pass laws in this country.
 
2012-06-11 12:10:32 PM  

Bullseyed: Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old.


You are so right, no 22-29 year olds have ever gotten seriously ill or injured and insurance companies LOVE to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's just stupid to pay for insurance when you're not 100% sure that something will go wrong. That's why we call it insurance. We're insured because we know something will definitely go wrong.
 
2012-06-11 12:11:58 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Bullseyed: Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old.

You are so right, no 22-29 year olds have ever gotten seriously ill or injured and insurance companies LOVE to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's just stupid to pay for insurance when you're not 100% sure that something will go wrong. That's why we call it insurance. We're insured because we know something will definitely go wrong.


I tell you what, I just love going to the dentist and having it cost hundreds of dollars.
 
2012-06-11 12:19:33 PM  

LasersHurt: thurstonxhowell: Bullseyed: Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old.

You are so right, no 22-29 year olds have ever gotten seriously ill or injured and insurance companies LOVE to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's just stupid to pay for insurance when you're not 100% sure that something will go wrong. That's why we call it insurance. We're insured because we know something will definitely go wrong.

I tell you what, I just love going to the dentist and having it cost hundreds of dollars.


My girlfriend is so stupid that she chooses to spend a modest amount on health insurance instead of forking out ~$450/month for medication. What an idiot!

You'll never guess what my sister did. She was diagnosed with a terrible illness in her late 20s while she was (stupidly) insured, and, get this, she continued to pay for health insurance instead of losing it and going bankrupt trying to keep up with her medical bills! Total moron!
 
2012-06-11 12:21:26 PM  

Ned Stark: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

You know, except for the mandate.


The insurance companies actually like/love the mandate portion. They just don't like no pre existing coverage requirements. They would love to have the mandate, but no requirement that they cover pre existing conditions and that those must get their insurance from the government.
 
2012-06-11 12:25:22 PM  
They just want to add a clause where they can come to your house and euthanize you if you get sick, that's all.
 
2012-06-11 12:30:02 PM  

Tyee: Epoch_Zero: Not true. Everything from car insurance to Macbooks are required purchases.

I don't have a Macbook and my brother is 63 and has never had car insurance.


Yes, and when your brother is involved in an accident he will not only be liable for the cost of all damages, but will be fined or possibly jailed for not having car insurance. As for the Macbook, that applied to the students of the MA school. But, you were stating that this is the first time - which is incorrect.

I am technically correct; the best kind of correct.
 
2012-06-11 12:39:27 PM  

GentDirkly: PPACA (Obamacare) requires maternity coverage to be standard in all individual and family plans. United Healthcare does not offer this now, and will not offer it if the law is struck down. In Florida, if you want to have kids, you better hope you work for a large employer, or your husband does, or that you'll be poor and destitute enough to qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise you risk bankruptcy just to reproduce. If you and the hubs are both free-lancers who do pretty well for yourselves, or if you're a semi-successful freelancer and not intending to marry your babydaddy, you're SOL.

Obviously this stifles entrepreneurship, etc.


I live in Florida. I had a kid. My insurer paid less than $5000 total. The bill from the hospital, for which I would have been responsible without insurance, was over $30000. Or labs that I get bilked over $100, and the insurer actually pays less than $5. Dafuq? If we outlawed that kind of shiat, I wouldn't NEED comprehensive health instance.
 
2012-06-11 12:41:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: "Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.


I don't understand Axelrod's complaint here. Obama and his supporters should be proud of the law they put in place and should want to be associated with it as much as possible.
 
2012-06-11 12:49:57 PM  

slykens1: Dusk-You-n-Me: "Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.

I don't understand Axelrod's complaint here. Obama and his supporters should be proud of the law they put in place and should want to be associated with it as much as possible.


The "complaint" is that it's never been done before, and doesn't NEED to be done. We know those programs by the names their creators gave them, not the people who passed them. It's like calling Windows GatesOS - it's silly.
 
2012-06-11 12:51:34 PM  

slykens1: Dusk-You-n-Me: "Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.

I don't understand Axelrod's complaint here. Obama and his supporters should be proud of the law they put in place and should want to be associated with it as much as possible.


You're right, you don't understand. Take a few minutes to try to figure it out, then read the rest of my post after this paragraph. This exercise might help you to one day be able to comprehend the English language.

Did you take a look? No? Well, I didn't actually expect you to, so that's not surprising. Here's a second chance if you want it. Since you don't, read the next line.

Axelrod is proud. He is not complaining. He thinks calling healthcare reform is a tactic that will backfire. He thinks the Republicans are stupid to hardwire the association of this health care law to Obama because one day it will be as popular as Social Security or Medicare, and people will be constantly reminded that Obama and, by extension, the Democratic Party was responsible for the now-popular law.
 
2012-06-11 12:58:52 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Tyee: Epoch_Zero: Not true. Everything from car insurance to Macbooks are required purchases.

I don't have a Macbook and my brother is 63 and has never had car insurance.

Yes, and when your brother is involved in an accident he will not only be liable for the cost of all damages, but will be fined or possibly jailed for not having car insurance. As for the Macbook, that applied to the students of the MA school. But, you were stating that this is the first time - which is incorrect.

I am technically correct; the best kind of correct.


Maybe his brother lives in NH where it isn't required?

Auto insurance requirements =! health care requirements. Auto requirements are set up by the states while this would be a federal mandate. Not to mention the privledge of driving verses the necessity of health care.
 
2012-06-11 01:09:41 PM  

thurstonxhowell: You're right, you don't understand. Take a few minutes to try to figure it out, then read the rest of my post after this paragraph. This exercise might help you to one day be able to comprehend the English language.


Posts like these make it easy to mark the dipshiats on Fark.

I apologize I didn't read the context - risks of visiting the Politics tab. :)
 
2012-06-11 01:11:24 PM  

slykens1: I don't understand Axelrod's complaint here. Obama and his supporters should be proud of the law they put in place and should want to be associated with it as much as possible.


The term was created for derogatory purposes by people opposed to the law and looking for a way to refer to the law in a derisive manner. Some people don't think that supporting their childishness is a good idea.

Now you understand and you can move on to something else.
 
2012-06-11 01:12:52 PM  
I've always said that the people out there who think they know what's best in health insurance should set up their own insurance company and run it just like they would run the government run health care system they want to force us all in to.

When it goes broke we won't laugh... Much.
 
2012-06-11 01:13:07 PM  

Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.


ah People??

i beg to differ.

what you meant to say was that Insurance Companies like to pick and choose which ever parts will benefit them. the hell with "the people"

you actually believe that Insurance companies care about you?? lol

they care about profit and only profit.

they profit of off other people's illnesses.

you need to wake up. you aren't in Kansas any more.
 
2012-06-11 01:16:03 PM  
Well, heath insurance companies are certainly a trustworthy lot.

I'm sure we can take their word for it.
 
2012-06-11 01:27:23 PM  

sdd2000: Ned Stark: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

You know, except for the mandate.

The insurance companies actually like/love the mandate portion. They just don't like no pre existing coverage requirements. They would love to have the mandate, but no requirement that they cover pre existing conditions and that those must get their insurance from the government.


Who gives a damn what those cannibals think?
 
2012-06-11 01:29:16 PM  

GentDirkly: The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.


The Second Militia Act of 1792 is an example of a Federal mandate that applied to everyone nationwide. So it would seem that the people who wrote the Constitution thought this was legal.

Link (new window)
 
2012-06-11 01:34:32 PM  

Zasteva: GentDirkly: The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 is an example of a Federal mandate that applied to everyone nationwide. So it would seem that the people who wrote the Constitution thought this was legal.

Link (new window)


See, now there's a much better example of a valid argument than the one about truancy. Good jorb.
 
2012-06-11 01:35:33 PM  

Zasteva: GentDirkly: The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 is an example of a Federal mandate that applied to everyone nationwide. So it would seem that the people who wrote the Constitution thought this was legal.

Link (new window)


Yeah, but that doesn't count because [insert some reason I can't think of right now because I can't read Karl Rove's mind].
 
2012-06-11 01:35:37 PM  
It is ultimately, and beyond anything else, a good public relations move. "See?" it says, "we care."

Good PR is good money.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Twigz221: Anyone who uses the term Obamacare is a partisan hack. It's such a terrible term and is a great example of the poison that has infected modern US politics.

I used to think the same thing, now I don't mind the term as much. Kind of bounces off the tongue. Also,

"Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.


And this. The use of an epithet can quickly grow into a compliment. Given the tendency for human filth to rage about "Get your government hands off my Medicare," can you imagine the rage and the fury if they had to concede that these were Democratic innovations?
 
2012-06-11 01:36:40 PM  

Zasteva: GentDirkly: The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 is an example of a Federal mandate that applied to everyone nationwide. So it would seem that the people who wrote the Constitution thought this was legal.

Link (new window)


Point the first, the governments power to raise militia has nothing to do with the power to regulate commerce.

Point the second, the people who wrote the constitution thought black people were property, so fark their opinions anyway.
 
2012-06-11 01:48:16 PM  

Ned Stark: Zasteva: GentDirkly: The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 is an example of a Federal mandate that applied to everyone nationwide. So it would seem that the people who wrote the Constitution thought this was legal.

Link (new window)

Point the first, the governments power to raise militia has nothing to do with the power to regulate commerce.

Point the second, the people who wrote the constitution thought black people were property, so fark their opinions anyway.


Rebuttal to point the first, Congress's power, in that one sentence of Art I Sec 8, is to use its own money to raise and support an army, not to require able-bodied males to use their money.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
 
2012-06-11 01:48:59 PM  
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
 
2012-06-11 01:54:42 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Doc Daneeka: Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.

Because honestly, the GOP hasn't thought things through. They haven't thought past repeal. But the fact is, if health care reform is overturned, the nation's healthcare system will still be broken and in need of major reform. If something can't go on, it won't - and eventually we will have universal health care. One way or another.

Do you really, really think that is what will happen? How many years have we gone without a comprehensive, simple solution? Do you really think the light bulb will magically go off, and our government will recognize the solution that's been staring them in the face forever?

No, we are going to muddle along while Congress dithers, health care costs contiue to spiral, the population ages and demands more for less, and things just go from bad to worse.

//Cynical today.


A system in which costs continue to spiral far faster than inflation, and which causes the majority of personal bankruptcies, even among the insured, is not sustainable in the long-term.

If the GOP is simply gunning for repeal but refuses to do anything to reform the current employer-based private-insurer health system and address its deep structural flaws, then eventually it will simply collapse. At which point it will be replaced by something else.
 
2012-06-11 02:02:48 PM  

LesserEvil: Tort reform can also help


Impeccable logic says it should. Empirical evidence (as in the majority of US states where various levels of tort reform have been in place for years now... and 99.9% of medical torts are filed in state courts) says it didn't.

Wish in one hand. Empirical evidence in the other. See which fills up first.
 
2012-06-11 02:12:17 PM  

Ned Stark: Zasteva: GentDirkly: The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 is an example of a Federal mandate that applied to everyone nationwide. So it would seem that the people who wrote the Constitution thought this was legal.

Link (new window)

Point the first, the governments power to raise militia has nothing to do with the power to regulate commerce.


If your argument is that they have the power to require people to buy muskets as part of their power to raise the militia, then why don't they have the power to force people to buy insurance as part of their dual powers under the commerce clause and general welfare clause?

Point the second, the people who wrote the constitution thought black people were property, so fark their opinions anyway.

While I agree that they were obviously not correct about everything, the discussion was about whether the mandate is constitutional or not. In that matter, the intent of the people who wrote it seems at least some what relevant. And, it should be pointed out that (to our great shame) black people could be property under the constitution until it was (thankfully) amended to prohibit it.

So, if you want to reduce the powers of the Federal government, you need to amend the constitution, not falsely claim historical precedent.
 
2012-06-11 02:32:23 PM  
Tort reform is the GOP's favorite red herring.

Not saying it's necessarily bad or wrong to enact tort reform depending on the circumstances.

But it won't actually make a dent in the escalating costs of health care.
 
2012-06-11 02:35:28 PM  
Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.


And its not about limiting the governments power, tbh. Its about torpedoing a terrible terrible piece of legislation. Since liberals have once again failed us all the only hope is the court or the teabaggers.
 
2012-06-11 03:10:15 PM  

Ned Stark: Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.


Good point. However, if you look up the definition of the infinitive verb "to regulate" in a dictionary that was around during the late 1700's, you will see that part of the definition of "to regulate" includes "to command." This was pointed out quite forcefully by Judge Laurence Silberman in his opinion that the individual mandate is constitutional.
 
2012-06-11 03:15:15 PM  
Insurer promises to keep some parts of Obamacare

See, the free market works just fine.
 
2012-06-11 03:23:33 PM  

Ned Stark: Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.


What is it about the word "to raise" that offers the government the power to force an individual the power to buy something as a private purchase, as opposed to a collect taxes and spend them?

Also, in the case of the general welfare clause, I believe the operative verb is "to promote".
 
2012-06-11 03:30:03 PM  
Our healthcare system is broken until those with pre-existing conditions have access to options for care.

The end.
 
2012-06-11 03:34:22 PM  

Polyhazard: Our healthcare system is broken until those with pre-existing conditions have access to options for care.

The end.


A) They can always pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and pay for care out-of-pocket.

B) That's what private, voluntary charity is for. If they only belonged to a church, they'd be taken care of.

/trying to figure out which of those two ridiculous responses is more likely to be the teabagger "solution" to your question.
 
2012-06-11 03:38:50 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Polyhazard: Our healthcare system is broken until those with pre-existing conditions have access to options for care.

The end.

A) They can always pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and pay for care out-of-pocket.

B) That's what private, voluntary charity is for. If they only belonged to a church, they'd be taken care of.

/trying to figure out which of those two ridiculous responses is more likely to be the teabagger "solution" to your question.


Actually, I believe the solution they prefer was pointed out at one of the debates in September where a few blowhards cheered when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul if we should just let sick people die.
 
2012-06-11 03:40:45 PM  

randomjsa: I've always said that the people out there who think they know what's best in health insurance should set up their own insurance company and run it just like they would run the government run health care system they want to force us all in to.


And how do you propose a private company mandate that everyone carry coverage since everyone will eventually be a consumer? You know. The key part of the plan that allows the insurers to remain profitable while keeping premiums from skyrocketing. How would a private company go about that?

Or do you just not actually think about your opinions before you let them dribble out the front of your face?
 
2012-06-11 03:41:13 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Polyhazard: Our healthcare system is broken until those with pre-existing conditions have access to options for care.

The end.

A) They can always pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and pay for care out-of-pocket.

B) That's what private, voluntary charity is for. If they only belonged to a church, they'd be taken care of.

/trying to figure out which of those two ridiculous responses is more likely to be the teabagger "solution" to your question.


No need to speculate. I've personally walked right up to Gadsden flag-waving "Obamacare" protesters and asked about this specific issue. Their answer: it doesn't matter, because a consequence of living in a free society is that sometimes bad things happen, and that trying to do something about those things leads to tyranny.
 
2012-06-11 03:44:16 PM  

Zasteva: Ned Stark: Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.

What is it about the word "to raise" that offers the government the power to force an individual the power to buy something as a private purchase, as opposed to a collect taxes and spend them?

Also, in the case of the general welfare clause, I believe the operative verb is "to promote".


Raise implies creating something where there was nothing before. Congress can create a militia either through paying for it or a mandate or whatever.

Congress cannot forcibly create commerce though. Only establish regulations that govern it.
 
2012-06-11 03:48:34 PM  

Serious Black: Doc Daneeka: Polyhazard: Our healthcare system is broken until those with pre-existing conditions have access to options for care.

The end.

A) They can always pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and pay for care out-of-pocket.

B) That's what private, voluntary charity is for. If they only belonged to a church, they'd be taken care of.

/trying to figure out which of those two ridiculous responses is more likely to be the teabagger "solution" to your question.

Actually, I believe the solution they prefer was pointed out at one of the debates in September where a few blowhards cheered when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul if we should just let sick people die.


The specifics of that question made a difference, though. The question was about a hypothetical young man with a good job that provided access to insurance and the ability to pay, but chose not to. Basically, someone who decided they were going to take a gamble, and whether it was our duty as a society to subsidize the risk he chose to take.

That's why I wished Wolf would have asked the much stickier question about the person who has done everything right but has no recourse under our current regime. Because this is the question that not a single Republican has sought to even acknowledge since thye designed the Individual Mandate back during the Clinton era.
 
2012-06-11 03:51:52 PM  

Splinshints: randomjsa: I've always said that the people out there who think they know what's best in health insurance should set up their own insurance company and run it just like they would run the government run health care system they want to force us all in to.

And how do you propose a private company mandate that everyone carry coverage since everyone will eventually be a consumer? You know. The key part of the plan that allows the insurers to remain profitable while keeping premiums from skyrocketing. How would a private company go about that?

Or do you just not actually think about your opinions before you let them dribble out the front of your face?


I do have an idea. They could all cartel and agree to backcharge everyone for gaps in coverage starting Jan 1, 2014, and the government could decide to turn a blind eye to that.
 
2012-06-11 04:05:53 PM  

Ned Stark: Zasteva: Ned Stark: Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.

What is it about the word "to raise" that offers the government the power to force an individual the power to buy something as a private purchase, as opposed to a collect taxes and spend them?

Also, in the case of the general welfare clause, I believe the operative verb is "to promote".

Raise implies creating something where there was nothing before. Congress can create a militia either through paying for it or a mandate or whatever.

Congress cannot forcibly create commerce though. Only establish regulations that govern it.


As I previously stated above, an original meaning interpretation of the verb "to regulate" includes "to command" and makes absolutely no distinction between pre-existing commerce and created commerce.
 
2012-06-11 04:20:41 PM  

Polyhazard: Our healthcare system is broken until those with pre-existing conditions have access to options for care.

The end.


Our healthcare system is just broken, period. We have a system where virtually all the incentives are misaligned so that we get higher costs and less patient control. The problem is for 50 years we've had the wrongheaded assumption that the only way to provide care is to get insurance to pay for it. The worst way of paying for something is to have a third party paying for another third party's care. Then there's no natural incentive to get the best quality at the best price.

You want to fix healthcare in this country. This seems to be the most sensible way to do it.

If you get rid of the notion that you have to pay for everything through insurance, then preexisting conditions becomes less of an issue. You still have to deal with catastrophic insurance, but then it just becomes a matter of pricing - and if you get costs under control you can have insurance policies specifically for a given preexisting condition at a reasonable cost.

Our fundamental problem is that we've created a healthcare system with a massive third-party payor problem, and that just does not work well.
 
2012-06-11 04:22:01 PM  

Serious Black: Ned Stark: Zasteva: Ned Stark: Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.

What is it about the word "to raise" that offers the government the power to force an individual the power to buy something as a private purchase, as opposed to a collect taxes and spend them?

Also, in the case of the general welfare clause, I believe the operative verb is "to promote".

Raise implies creating something where there was nothing before. Congress can create a militia either through paying for it or a mandate or whatever.

Congress cannot forcibly create commerce though. Only establish regulations that govern it.

As I previously stated above, an original meaning interpretation of the verb "to regulate" includes "to command" and makes absolutely no distinction between pre-existing commerce and created commerce.


As I previously stated above, authors intent is unpersuesive.
 
2012-06-11 04:26:13 PM  

Ned Stark: Serious Black: Ned Stark: Zasteva: Ned Stark: Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.

What is it about the word "to raise" that offers the government the power to force an individual the power to buy something as a private purchase, as opposed to a collect taxes and spend them?

Also, in the case of the general welfare clause, I believe the operative verb is "to promote".

Raise implies creating something where there was nothing before. Congress can create a militia either through paying for it or a mandate or whatever.

Congress cannot forcibly create commerce though. Only establish regulations that govern it.

As I previously stated above, an original meaning interpretation of the verb "to regulate" includes "to command" and makes absolutely no distinction between pre-existing commerce and created commerce.

As I previously stated above, authors intent is unpersuesive.


Not intent, but meaning. As Justice Scalia has noted over and over again, there is a big difference between the two. The original MEANING of regulating commerce includes making commands regarding commerce, and no portion of that original meaning makes any distinction between pre-existing and created commerce.
 
2012-06-11 04:29:00 PM  

palelizard: And, aside from pregnancy, the 25 and under crowd don't often have particularly expensive ailments. Combine that with free preventative care, which means they're more likely to get something checked out early rather than wait until it gets bad, and there's good odds the positive PR will make this profitable.

It looks like a sensible move on United's part, a win-win decision. Let's see how they screw it up.


Eh, as far as no co-pays on preventative screenings, large hospital conglomerates are the primary force behind it. The day of the private practice primary care physician is coming to the end. The future is hospital systems using primary care physicians as loss leaders (like discounted toilet paper at Walmart) to get you in the door and then reap the benefits from booking outpatient procedures and specialty consults within their system.
 
2012-06-11 04:43:28 PM  
To command still isn't to create.
 
2012-06-11 04:47:32 PM  
That's Obamunism, subby.
 
2012-06-11 04:50:43 PM  

WombatControl: ou can have insurance policies specifically for a given preexisting condition at a reasonable cost.


If a pre-existing condition can't be treated at a reasonable cost, how can you deliver insurance specifically for it at a reasonable cost? In fact, what's the point of insurance if you just get insured for each individual condition? The insurance company can't look at a $10000/month treatment plan, sell you insurance that covers it for $1000/month, and make money.
 
2012-06-11 05:09:22 PM  
Want HC costs to come down? Step 1: Eliminate these.
 
2012-06-11 05:30:36 PM  

WombatControl: If you get rid of the notion that you have to pay for everything through insurance, then preexisting conditions becomes less of an issue. You still have to deal with catastrophic insurance, but then it just becomes a matter of pricing - and if you get costs under control you can have insurance policies specifically for a given preexisting condition at a reasonable cost.


Your bolded caveat just killed the rest of the theory.

Sniffles, wellness exams, broken bones, and scripts for Lipitor and a blood-pressure drug? Possibly consumer-driven decisions. And bloody-well rounding errors in the cost of medicine. Medical costs *are*, by and large, catastrophic costs. Heart attacks, cancer, major trauma, stroke, and a handful of other conditions.

You want to attack the somewhat consumer-manageable costs? Fine. HSA/high-deductible plans are more common each and every year. We could push more of them, like Libertarian-dream Singapore (though the Cato-reading Libertarians don't want to talk about the fact that nanny-state Singapore sets price caps on medical treatments... it's illegal to overcharge).

But, you're swatting at flies here, not the bulk of the problem.
 
2012-06-11 05:31:17 PM  

jigger: Want HC costs to come down? Step 1: Eliminate these.


Actually, health care in many cases suffers from supply-driven demand, so building tons of hospitals could result in increasing costs as doctors try to keep their beds filled.
 
2012-06-11 05:31:40 PM  

thurstonxhowell: WombatControl: ou can have insurance policies specifically for a given preexisting condition at a reasonable cost.

If a pre-existing condition can't be treated at a reasonable cost, how can you deliver insurance specifically for it at a reasonable cost? In fact, what's the point of insurance if you just get insured for each individual condition? The insurance company can't look at a $10000/month treatment plan, sell you insurance that covers it for $1000/month, and make money.


That assumes that you can't treat a pre-existing condition at a reasonable cost. We're not talking about getting insurance when someone's already dying of cancer, we're talking about hedging against a relatively known, quantifiable risk. Yes, you'd have a relatively costly high-deductible policy, but that's cheaper than having our current system where you either lose coverage or pay even more.

Basically, it should work that most common medical expenses are paid for either out-of-pocket or on credit, and things like catastrophic illnesses, accidents, or preexisting conditions are treated as the insurable events they are. Right now we have a system where all medical spending is handled by insurance, even when it makes very little sense to treat it as an insurable event.
 
2012-06-11 05:33:48 PM  

Ned Stark: To command still isn't to create.


Anonymous internet commenter, or well-respected DC Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman? I think I'm going to agree with the guy that has almost 50 years of legal experience personally.
 
2012-06-11 05:35:02 PM  

WombatControl: thurstonxhowell: WombatControl: ou can have insurance policies specifically for a given preexisting condition at a reasonable cost.

If a pre-existing condition can't be treated at a reasonable cost, how can you deliver insurance specifically for it at a reasonable cost? In fact, what's the point of insurance if you just get insured for each individual condition? The insurance company can't look at a $10000/month treatment plan, sell you insurance that covers it for $1000/month, and make money.

That assumes that you can't treat a pre-existing condition at a reasonable cost. We're not talking about getting insurance when someone's already dying of cancer, we're talking about hedging against a relatively known, quantifiable risk. Yes, you'd have a relatively costly high-deductible policy, but that's cheaper than having our current system where you either lose coverage or pay even more.

Basically, it should work that most common medical expenses are paid for either out-of-pocket or on credit, and things like catastrophic illnesses, accidents, or preexisting conditions are treated as the insurable events they are. Right now we have a system where all medical spending is handled by insurance, even when it makes very little sense to treat it as an insurable event.


Question: what do you consider a high enough deductible for insurance to qualify as "catastrophic"?
 
2012-06-11 05:47:24 PM  

Lawnchair: Sniffles, wellness exams, broken bones, and scripts for Lipitor and a blood-pressure drug? Possibly consumer-driven decisions. And bloody-well rounding errors in the cost of medicine. Medical costs *are*, by and large, catastrophic costs. Heart attacks, cancer, major trauma, stroke, and a handful of other conditions.


That's what I used to think too - but emergency spending is only 2-3% of total health care spending. It's the emergency spending that's basically a rounding error. Which makes sense when you think about it - yes, catastrophic care is expensive, but you get the sniffles a hell of a lot more than you have a heart attack.

Again, the point of insurance is to hedge against the risk of a catastrophic event. I don't pay for my car's gas or oil changes by submitting an insurance claim. I have insurance in case some idiot T-bones me at an intersection.

So why do we treat health care differently? It just doesn't make sense to finance regular, knowable purchases with a system that's not designed for it. You can treat catastrophic events like the insurable events they are - but even then there needs to be a system of price transparency to make sure that the moral hazard problems we have now don't continue.
 
2012-06-11 05:48:24 PM  

Serious Black: Ned Stark: To command still isn't to create.

Anonymous internet commenter, or well-respected DC Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman? I think I'm going to agree with the guy that has almost 50 years of legal experience personally.


Only 9 judges actually matter.
 
2012-06-11 05:50:27 PM  

Serious Black: Question: what do you consider a high enough deductible for insurance to qualify as "catastrophic"?


I don't think there would be one figure - that would depend on what the consumer ultimately wanted. It could be $5,000, it could be $10,000, it could be $20,000. It all depends on the amount of risk you wanted to assume and your means to do so.
 
2012-06-11 06:06:51 PM  

Ned Stark: Zasteva: Ned Stark: Because raise does not mean the same thing as regulate.

What is it about the word "to raise" that offers the government the power to force an individual the power to buy something as a private purchase, as opposed to a collect taxes and spend them?

Also, in the case of the general welfare clause, I believe the operative verb is "to promote".

Ned Stark: Raise implies creating something where there was nothing before. Congress can create a militia either through paying for it or a mandate or whatever.


True, but what they were given the power to raise was a militia. They weren't given the constitution power to raise the number of sales of muskets to private individuals. They took that power on themselves as a way to accomplish the raising of a militia; by forcing individuals who were not participating in the commerce of muskets to participate in that commerce.

Ned Stark: Congress cannot forcibly create commerce though. Only establish regulations that govern it.

Congress is not creating commerce where there was nothing before. There is already a large amount of commerce for both medical care in general and health insurance as a means of paying for that care. Arguably, every single person in this country participants in commerce for medical care, even if many of them don't use the health insurance market as a way to pay for it. So congress, under it's constitutional power to regulate commerce used it's power to regulate the health care market via taxes on those who don't have health insurance. Yes, this creates new sales of health insurance as a side effect. So what?

Congress has regulated national parks too, such that national parks require fees to get in. That creates new sales of park passes. Is that unconstitutional?
 
2012-06-11 06:08:57 PM  

WombatControl: Serious Black: Question: what do you consider a high enough deductible for insurance to qualify as "catastrophic"?

I don't think there would be one figure - that would depend on what the consumer ultimately wanted. It could be $5,000, it could be $10,000, it could be $20,000. It all depends on the amount of risk you wanted to assume and your means to do so.


There's the catch. The people who are most easily able to assume a huge amount of risk in their health care costs have the most money readily available. The people who can only assume a small amount of risk (if any at all) tend to have very little money available. This means that the people who can assume the most risk pay the least into the system and preserve more of their income and wealth, and the people who can assume very little risk pay the most into the system and drain much of their income and wealth in the process.

Oh, and even if you could make such a system work, it doesn't even get into the issue of how you make insurance coverage offered to people with PREX actuarially sound so that private companies can cover sick people without going bankrupt.
 
2012-06-11 07:02:27 PM  

WombatControl: Serious Black: Question: what do you consider a high enough deductible for insurance to qualify as "catastrophic"?

I don't think there would be one figure - that would depend on what the consumer ultimately wanted. It could be $5,000, it could be $10,000, it could be $20,000. It all depends on the amount of risk you wanted to assume and your means to do so.


So all wage slaves should just be left to die then? It's bad enough now with people declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills but even $2000 is out of reach for most people and the monthly costs for a current family plan are already onerous at several HUNDRED per month. Nationalize the system, spread the cost out, and tell the people that biatch to go live in the desert because civilization isn't for them.
 
2012-06-11 07:02:35 PM  

WombatControl: That's what I used to think too - but emergency spending is only 2-3% of total health care spending. It's the emergency spending that's basically a rounding error. Which makes sense when you think about it - yes, catastrophic care is expensive, but you get the sniffles a hell of a lot more than you have a heart attack.


You're quoting something entirely different. Stop quoting something entirely different. Cancer, a catastrophic medical cost in just about every instance (and under just about every reasonable definition of catastrophic you care to name) is 10%-15% of the medical expense of the US by itself. Not something treated in ERs.
 
2012-06-11 07:09:31 PM  

WombatControl: That's what I used to think too - but emergency spending is only 2-3% of total health care spending.


Emergency spending is not the same thing as catastrophic spending. More than three quarters of all medical spending is on chronic conditions, most of the cost of which is not billed through the ED. For example, patients with renal failure may occasionally need to go to the ED, but the vast majority of their expense comes from the long-term management of the condition, not the treatment of acute, emergent complications.
 
2012-06-11 07:14:08 PM  

Fail in Human Form: So all wage slaves should just be left to die then? It's bad enough now with people declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills but even $2000 is out of reach for most people


No. They'd just declare bankruptcy. Just like they do now. It's the catastrophic, very-high-deductible, sliding scale (we'll empty your wallet, then you file) universal medical insurance that we provide in the US.

The longer-term goal, then, is how to end that tender mercy to the poor? Non-dischargable medical bills? Inheritable debts? Workhouses? Time will tell.
 
2012-06-11 08:19:04 PM  
Its ironic That its the private sector has cost effectively determined a way to permit those with religious or personal differences to be accommodated by providing opt out classifications. Seems like the private sector did for the benefit of all, what the big goverment democrats where forcing down our throats. Healthcare we don't want or need but are expected to pay for for their other agendas. Saved by the private sector.
 
2012-06-11 10:09:27 PM  

Proteios1: Its ironic That its the private sector has cost effectively determined a way to permit those with religious or personal differences to be accommodated by providing opt out classifications. Seems like the private sector did for the benefit of all, what the big goverment democrats where forcing down our throats. Healthcare we don't want or need but are expected to pay for for their other agendas. Saved by the private sector.


drunk posting; not even once.
 
2012-06-11 10:24:24 PM  

Lawnchair: Fail in Human Form: So all wage slaves should just be left to die then? It's bad enough now with people declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills but even $2000 is out of reach for most people

No. They'd just declare bankruptcy. Just like they do now. It's the catastrophic, very-high-deductible, sliding scale (we'll empty your wallet, then you file) universal medical insurance that we provide in the US.

The longer-term goal, then, is how to end that tender mercy to the poor? Non-dischargable medical bills? Inheritable debts? Workhouses? Time will tell.


I sometimes wonder why we don't have the IRS garnish wages for medical bills even after bankruptcy - so long as the person signed off on the dollar amount prior to delivery of care. So obviously that would not apply to emergency situations. Is that Draconian? Sure but life sucks and this is fair-ish. The only reason hypothetical patient was able to earn an income is because hypothetical medical system wrote up a treatment plan, with a cost, and did the work. Fair for hypothetical person to have their wages garnished.
The other two "solutions" you mention are much less likely and much less fair.
 
2012-06-12 09:09:10 AM  

WombatControl: That assumes that you can't treat a pre-existing condition at a reasonable cost. We're not talking about getting insurance when someone's already dying of cancer


Actually, when I'm talking about pre-existing conditions, I am talking about a pre-existing case of an extremely common set of diseases.

WombatControl: preexisting conditions are treated as the insurable events they are.


I'm not sure you understand what "pre-existing" means. If I already have cancer or lupus or any of the other myriad expensive to treat illnesses that people have, how is that an insurable event? That's what pre-existing means - I already have it. This is not some event that occurs in the future that I can insure against. This has already happened and I need healthcare for it. It is not possible to sell me insurance for a pre-existing condition for less than the cost of the necessary healthcare and make a profit.
 
2012-06-12 09:15:53 AM  

derpdeederp: cameroncrazy1984: derpdeederp: Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.

Which companies were those, exactly?

AARP for sure. Im guessing for non-profit status or just because the government loves the old people voting block, not really sure which other ones.

/Uncle is national director of AARP, get some insight sometimes.


Saw an article where AARP gets 1 Billion over 10 years from obamacare...
 
2012-06-12 09:21:56 AM  

Tyee: Good for them! They don't have to have a massive expensive federal bureaucracy forcing them to something.
Maybe we all can choose do more without a massive expensive federal bureaucracy forcing us. Maybe if we weren't forced to pay for massive federal bureaucracies and they weren't weren't so farking inefficient and expensive we could afford to.


I have seen and heard news articles about huge numbers of hires by the IRS, for tracking those who don't buy the insurance.. I believe that's adding mass to massive...
 
2012-06-12 09:34:17 AM  

thurstonxhowell: WombatControl: preexisting conditions are treated as the insurable events they are.

I'm not sure you understand what "pre-existing" means. If I already have cancer or lupus or any of the other myriad expensive to treat illnesses that people have, how is that an insurable event? That's what pre-existing means - I already have it. This is not some event that occurs in the future that I can insure against. This has already happened and I need healthcare for it. It is not possible to sell me insurance for a pre-existing condition for less than the cost of the necessary healthcare and make a profit.


I gotta admit, I think it's pretty rich that he's accusing the Democratic Party of trying to destroy the private health insurance industry so we have to use Medicare for All. At the same time, he's tacitly agreeing that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to purchase health insurance from any provider. That really would destroy the private health insurance industry, especially if there were no guarantee of getting everyone into the risk pool.
 
2012-06-12 10:13:15 AM  

Serious Black: thurstonxhowell: WombatControl: preexisting conditions are treated as the insurable events they are.

I'm not sure you understand what "pre-existing" means. If I already have cancer or lupus or any of the other myriad expensive to treat illnesses that people have, how is that an insurable event? That's what pre-existing means - I already have it. This is not some event that occurs in the future that I can insure against. This has already happened and I need healthcare for it. It is not possible to sell me insurance for a pre-existing condition for less than the cost of the necessary healthcare and make a profit.

I gotta admit, I think it's pretty rich that he's accusing the Democratic Party of trying to destroy the private health insurance industry so we have to use Medicare for All. At the same time, he's tacitly agreeing that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to purchase health insurance from any provider. That really would destroy the private health insurance industry, especially if there were no guarantee of getting everyone into the risk pool.


Yeah. That's exactly why the Republican Party, back when they could still manage to string two thoughts together, came up with the idea of the individual mandate in the first place.

It's the only way you can achieve universal coverage in a private-insurer-based system.
 
2012-06-12 02:15:54 PM  

thurstonxhowell: WombatControl: That assumes that you can't treat a pre-existing condition at a reasonable cost. We're not talking about getting insurance when someone's already dying of cancer

Actually, when I'm talking about pre-existing conditions, I am talking about a pre-existing case of an extremely common set of diseases.

WombatControl: preexisting conditions are treated as the insurable events they are.

I'm not sure you understand what "pre-existing" means. If I already have cancer or lupus or any of the other myriad expensive to treat illnesses that people have, how is that an insurable event? That's what pre-existing means - I already have it. This is not some event that occurs in the future that I can insure against. This has already happened and I need healthcare for it. It is not possible to sell me insurance for a pre-existing condition for less than the cost of the necessary healthcare and make a profit.


The reason why it's independently insurable is its a quantifiable risk. Someone with lupus* will, actuarially speaking, have a need for $X worth of medical care in a year due to their condition. It's a much higher risk pool, granted, but its not de facto uninsurable.

Even ObamaCare tried to create a high-risk insurance pool - it hasn't worked because the enrollment has been much less than expected, but it's not some foreign concept. IIRC, the majority of states have already implemented high-risk insurance pools. The implementation is tricky, but not impossible.

One of the big benefits to these plans is that it ensures that you don't lose the rest of your health care coverage because of pre-existing condition. If you separate out your standard care (paid for out-of-pocket in a competitive marketplace with price transparency) from your high-risk care, you don't lose all your access to private care because you have a preexisting condition.

/ Besides, it's never lupus...
 
2012-06-12 03:19:37 PM  

WombatControl: The reason why it's independently insurable is its a quantifiable risk. Someone with lupus* will, actuarially speaking, have a need for $X worth of medical care in a year due to their condition. It's a much higher risk pool, granted, but its not de facto uninsurable.

Even ObamaCare tried to create a high-risk insurance pool - it hasn't worked because the enrollment has been much less than expected, but it's not some foreign concept. IIRC, the majority of states have already implemented high-risk insurance pools. The implementation is tricky, but not impossible.


No, it IS uninsurable. Please read this report, or if it gets too technical (not at all a slam on you since there's a lot of math involved), this article summarizes it and explains what it means in the real world.
 
2012-06-12 06:25:04 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.


This is like wishing that civil unions are banned so that gay marriage could be enacted or that MJ and prostitution would be criminalized everywhere, so that they could then be made totally legal. Not. Gonna. Happen.
 
2012-06-12 10:52:36 PM  

derpdeederp: Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.


That and the fact that the industry has been reported to reclassify administrative expenses as medical expenses. They'll get away with it, but the 99% will have to observe the mandate.
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report