Discussion in 'US Health Care Reform' started by Ellen, Mar 28, 2010.
Chad Carpenter comes through again:
All I have to say to the right wing folks on here is... What makes your child entitled to life saving insulin or a pump to manage D and leaves a middle class uninsured family to no coverage rationing stips and insulin. We were in this position when my husband lost his upper managment job. Could you watch your child suffer? Is it right or fair? NO and for you to imply it is okay makes me sick to my stomach. All children or people for that matter deserve health care and dignity. I wish you could be in the shoes of someone in a position that you can not afford insulin and I am sure you would change your mind. It is so sad the people are so incredibly egoscentric. I am sure you also consider yourself a christian. I am not religous but from what I have learned it sounds like your attitude is the most unchristian ever. Please get a clue and look past yourself!
Sigh. Yes, we "right-wing people" only want to see children suffer, especially our own. We also want the elderly to choose between food and medicine, and we want people to die on the streets from otherwise treatable conditions.
I am also "un-Christian" and egocentric enough to stand up and say that this mess of a bill, passed behind closed doors and greased with bribes and lies, is not going to benefit my daughter.
Unlike yourself, I would never wish for anyone to be in a position where they had to worry about test strips and insulin. Unless this law, which will only be successful in seizing power from the people and placing it in the hands of the state, is repealed we will all be trying to figure out how to wring that extra vial of insulin free from the bureaucrat who just saw the headline reading "US debt projected to exceed GDP by 2015."
I suppose that freeing the generics labs from regulations set in place by politicians fat on compaign money from the drug companies wouldn't be "Christian" would it? I mean, let us imagine for a moment that generic fast-acting insulin could be had for $15 per vial, and strips for $10 per 100, and without "subsidies" that you would pay yourself through a VAT or increased sales, property, and other taxes.
It can be done. Generics labs are screaming from every mountain that it can be done, if only the FDA would allow it. Why don't other countries do it then, if the FDA is so problematic? Prices are controlled in other countries, therefore there's no incentive to do it! Why spend $1 billion developing generic insulin in, for example, Norway, if 90% of the actual markets don't allow you to charge enough to cover the expenses?
Forgive me if my ego or my lack of Christian values do not permit me to only see one solution to a problem.
I am guessing that this is an old resurrected thread. Nevertheless I would like to participate because I thought it was a topic missing on cwd.
I appreciate everything everyone said because I trust that all of you have spoken from the heart with the sincerest of intentions.
Now, about who wants what in health care reform:
For years now when people have posted polls in the media I have noticed a tendency to only post polls that support one point of view and also to spin those same polls.
Those in favor of the present bill often post polls that say people want health care reform but fail to discriminate between those who want reform and those who want THIS reform. Those who post polls that say people do not want this reform post polls that people do not want specific aspects of the bill.
When people say that the majority of us do not want this they really meant that the majority of us do not want some specific aspect of the bill. How many of them would scrap the whole bill based on the parts they do not want? I don't think that question was answered when you made your post but now in February we know that 58% of us favor repeal. I think it is a pretty telling statistic. It is not that people want to tweak it. To favor repeal completely is pretty strong.
The reality I take from the polls when viewing all of them is that people do indeed want reform, and it is not the reform that has been given to them, but they do want some of what is in this bill.
The politicians have failed to listen to what we want and have instead tried to shape our views to match their bills. It happens far too often on all sorts of bills and from both parties. I think the failure to listen has been particularly strong on this bill and the recent elections prove that and will prove it again in the senate soon.
This bill deserves to be scrapped and then we can start over again when there is a balance of power between parties.
It is possible to create a bill that most Americans would approve of except for the far right or the far left. It is possible to solve our problems of cost and pre-existing conditions without resorting to a restriction of liberty. I don't think the politicians have even tried to solve our problems with our best interest at heart. For too long both parties have not even tried to do what is best but instead try to do what they want to do regardless.
Again I am glad that you have participated in this thread and value what you have to say.
To me it appears that you have attempted to characterize the law is merely some new rules, as effecting insurance companies but not individuals, and generally to minimize some of the arguments. Additionally, can one really think that there is no debate about the substance unless one has failed to expose oneself to a variety of opinions and sources?
Maybe I have misread your intent. I hope so. But that is what the words above look like to me. I hope I have read them wrong and hope you will correct me with a more favorable reading of your opinion.
At the risk of being repetitious and even foolish I will again say I am glad you have posted what you have to say. I value the respect of fellow CWD parents and seek to offer that respect more than I want to persuade people of one political view or another.
Is the bill a "takeover"?
Here is a link that discusses that and included a link to the Politifact statement that it is not a takeover as well as a rebuttal and a statement that it is a takeover. For everyone to taste and think on:
With one definition of the word takeover it is not but with another definition it is. And if it is not will it lead to a takeover? Might one party create a good law that one day would be abused by another party that would indeed takeover? The RICO law was intended to stop mobsters but has been used to stifle individuals free speech. In fact many laws were written to stop one form of behavior but have been expanded in practice to stop others never considered by the authors.
If you do not trust the republicans to use the Patriot act without abuse or you do ot trust the democrats to use the health care act without abuse then how in the world could you trust an unknown future party to use the expanded federal powers given to it without abuse. The real issues here are the issues of states rights and limited federal government.
I appreciate what you have to say.
Respectfully I disagree.
The utilities are regulated to a large degree and clearly do not have self determination to do even the most basic things any truly private business would do such as design it own billing system and set its own prices. They are technically private but in practice there is nothing private about them.
The argument used to gain control over the utilities is that they are monopolies. This is not true of health care providers or insurance providers.
I see you have switched from the phrase takeover to the phrase "government run". There may be debate on whether or not it is a takeover but there is no debate that so much of the operations of insurance would be directed by government that they would in fact be government run. The were already one of the most regulated industries in the country before the bill passed and if it had stayed law or stays law it will be an increase to such a degree that they would be the most regulated industry in the country.
I personally don't have any rage on this issue and don't see that much rage either. But I do know that a smaller regulation of commerce that was actually harmful to people required a constitutional amendment because people understood that gov did not have the authority to prohibit the sale of a private product (alcohol). In this case the gov tried not to prohibit the sale of harmful product but to insist on the purchase of an often unwanted product and they attempted to do it without an amendment.
We can accomplish the goals in improving health care without losing liberty in the process!! The people who should most be behind reform without losing liberty are the people who call themselves either libertarians or liberals. Republicans can be excused if they ignore liberty because they are evil anyway.
Well, gotta go see ya all later.
Thank you for weighing in on the topic.
But do you really think that objections to the health care law are about race? Maybe you were speaking with your tongue in your cheek and I just missed that? While I would like to hear more of what you have to say because maybe, just maybe, I have missed something important here - that racism is the reason people oppose the health care law. I would like to see some of the racist things people have said while objecting to the law. Then we can evaluate to what extent these are relevant.
But for the mean time I will just have to say that I have not seen a single racist or sexists argument made against the health care law either by anyone with any credibility or even by the KKK. Admittedly I have not seen any arguments from the KKK at all. Though I would not care too much about what groups with zero credibility were to say.
Yes, yes it was passed under cover of darkness.
And while we have gotten too used to congress acting like that, this time around they really took the cake. Amazingly it was done at exactly the time when the current administration promised to be the most transparent in history.
Does this not bother everyone, even those who favor the law?
This article was published nearly a year ago, as were most of the replies. I was reporting that the article seemed to say the rage may be racist. I wasn't expressing my opinion.
I am not sure what you are trying to do to get an old thread going again. This thread involves a lot of reading which many may not be interested in doing. Perhaps you should start a new one.
I love your post; direct questions that can be answered and not just partisan hyperbole (I am serious and not joking).
I seem to have understood the other persons post differently than you did. I think he/she may have responded to this but I would like to also:
Not being able to make a profit would cause a company to go out of business (leaving people to join the public option instead) it would not make a company a not-for-profit.
If you want to know what in the law forces insurance companies to work without profits, that I can answer by pointing to a supreme court decision that says the government is not allowed to determine that the companies should make very small profits:
"Regulating the price which insurance companies must charge for policies, coupled with a requirement that companies must rebate to their customers the amount by which their loss ratios fall below 90%, effectively turns these companies into government-run enterprises and would likely result in the effective nationalization of the healthcare industry. That is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and of a Supreme Court requirement "that any firm in a regulated market be allowed to recover a risk-adjusted competitive rate of return on its accumulated capital investment." "
The government does not have the authority to tell a private company that it cannot make a profit of a certain size.
Seeing rates go up is no fun for anyone. But rates go up for a lot of reasons and in this case the profits of the insurance industry are not the cause. The insurance industry makes on average about 4% profit. Compared to the electronic industry which makes in the middle double digits that is nothing.
Rising rates could just as easily be the result of improved and better treatments or even the result of increased regulation. And more likely the result of many factors - none if which is rising insurance industry profits. They are just a convenient scapegoat.
Thanks for what you have to offer. Have I already responded to something like this you have said? If so I apologize as I am just responding to the points people make and staying objective by not considering who said a thing but whether or not I thought the thing was factually correct or not.
And I do not think it is factually correct to say that this 2000 page law merely represents a few new regulations. It both includes huge numbers of new regulations but steps over the constitutional line be creating new regulations that would fundamentally alter the nature of our country when the precedents they set are then followed in later legislation.
I know you posted this a long time ago and I now have the advantage of hindsight. But it is no coincidence that 20 something states have challenged the constitutionality of the bill and that a federal judge said it gave congress a new authority that would give congress the power to make absolutely any law they desired thereby making us not a country of limited government as intended to be.
There have been a variety of opinions given on how the costs will shake out. The ones I trust the most have said it will increase costs and increase them a lot. This new law is worse than what we have now. IMO.
 Darryl, I am glad that your input is here. I agree that there is no sinister plot. The unholy influence of big business on congress is out in the open right there for all to see. As is the unholy influence of government on business. And we all are completely aware of the backroom deals and payoffs from lobbyists. The perpetrators of these schemes do so with our full knowledge that it is happening and each one of them justifies his own part and has somewhere in it a good motive. Each one of them points to the other guys part and decries how evil the other guys motive is. Regardless, the system is broken and collectively our system of government fails to operate as it should and opens the door for future despots and tyrants to abuse it. [end edit]
I used to worry about the aspects of these laws that resemble socialism, and by resemble I mean a lot. But i have been convinced by my friends on the left who have long feared corporatism more than socialism. These days corporatism is the greatest threat to our countries health.
And both parties have long engaged in massive amounts of corporitism. Our current president is much more like a corporatist than a socialist.
When very large corporations and very large government cooperate we have much to fear. The end result may very well be that the insurance companies survive - well one or two of them anyway. And then as the two largest corporations in the US working arm and arm with the largest government in the world they will be a force never before seen on this planet in terms of the power they will have. They will be good, they will be benevolent - just until they are not. Do you trust insurance companies now? Do you trust congress now? Do you trust an alliance of them?
"The biggest threat to American democracy is corporate power,? Kennedy told us. ?There is vogue in the White House to talk about the threat of big government. But since the beginning of our national history, our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics, the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy.?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
I appreciate what you have to say.
And I will say what you did not.
People with pre-existing conditions need to have care. I don't think there is anyone denying that.
But it is completely and utterly wrong for them to have that care paid for by insurance companies that did not collect premiums first. People with pre-existing conditions should not be covered by insurance companies for those conditions (they should find treatment in other ways). That would be like having Farmers Insurance pay to rebuild your house after it burns down even though you never had insurance through them.
What is wrong is when insurance companies refuse to provide ANY insurance to a person with a pre-existing condition. If you had a heart attack last year then Blue Cross with whom you never had a policy should not be paying for that, but if you apply for insurance with blue cross for all your other health care needs then Blue Cross should not be denying you coverage.
A mandate requiring people to buy insurance before they have the condition which will later become a pre-existing condition is not the right solution. Making insurance inexpensive and available so that 51 million people do not choose not to have it is the first step. We must first remove the factors that drive up prices and stand as barriers to purchasing insurance. In many ways the newest health care plan works in exactly the opposite direction - driving up prices and increasing barriers - it would make things worse for the country as a whole while coercing millions of people to buy insurance. The first is a huge economic problem the second is a precedent that is a grave threat to our liberties.
There will always be some people who would choose not to have insurance even if it were cheap and easy to get. Right now about 12 million want it and can't afford it. We could get that number down to 6 million. A number we can manage and find a solution for. About 27 million can afford it but don't buy it anyway because they are wealthy. If a wealthy person gets a pre-existing condition and looses his house to pay for expensive care who will cry for their loss of house and home that they brought on themselves? The remainder either have health care or lack it for a few months at most. We can also find solutions to manage the problem of people who lack health care for a few months. 51 million is too large a number for us to manage to find easy solutions for. Luckily the real number is not that large and we can find solutions for 6 million who want insurance but can't afford it or persons who are without it between jobs.
I am heartened by the sentiment and the feeling of what you have to say. I am glad that you trust your government. I disagree with the facts behind it.
There are not very many of these utilities. In each market in which they exist they are a monopoly. Do you want your insurance carrier to be a monopoly also or do you want to be able to choose from thousands to get the best one for you? As more and more businesses would be converted from competitors in a marketplace to one of a couple monopolies a shift would occur in which our country no longer was a free market system to one in which all power were held by a few hundred companies and one government. The checks and balances given to us to protect our rights would be gone. I can't prove that we would ever move from a system with a few monopolistic companies among many competitors to one with only monopolistic companies but the trend is clearly there. And the reality of it is enough that both the left and the right fear it, just naming different players as the bad buy. And the reality of it is enough that judge Vinson specifically said that this new law would set a precedent for a government that would not have any constitutional limitations at all. I don't know of anyone who credibly said we would be overthrown by a tyrant tomorrow but it sets the stage.
I think you overestimate the ease with which this law could be undone after it were established for a long time. It is designed to be an entitlement program which once people got used to they would never want to give up. Much like Medicare, no one wants to stop getting their benefits after paying in for so long. It simply cant be stopped so easily. This is not a threat to our country like dropping a car on a camel would be a threat to its life but neither is it just a single straw that would break that camel's back. This is the single largest step in the wrong direction that our country would have ever taken. This would be the largest expansion of federal power that our country would have ever had. This would be the largest shift from a free enterprise system to its opposite that we would have ever seen so far. This would move one sixths of the relatively free economy in the hands of bureaucrats to a more than significant way.
And yes it carries danger to life and limb. In a future post I will make the point that the US has the best health care system in the world. No country gets better results in treating more ailments than the US. If we become more like them and get less excellent results like they do there will be more deaths. Our health care system will also stop improving at the same rate and future lives saved will be lost while progress is delayed. That is the nature of bureaucracy.
It has been working better than anywhere else. (unless anyone really believes that Cuba has a better health care system than we do). Prices have been rising fast but few have really examined why that is. Instead our politicians have duped us into believing the reasons are one thing when they are really several other things that we actually want. I want to pay higher prices so that the hospital I go to has an MRI machine right there instead of traveling to a clinic to use a machine that is old and outdated. We should not slow the rise of prices when that rise is because we are getting the metaphorical 52 inch plasma tv instead of the 12 inch black and white. But we should slow the rise when it is due to a system that stymies competition and encourages fraud and is just plainly inefficient.
I am sorry but it is not just a new set of rules. I don't even know how you can say that. This represents a huge change. This is a huge change both in the magnitude of how much would change and also in the fundamental core principals of our founding that would change.
I love having links and statements that can be evaluated by all. Good job in posting exactly the best kind of post.
IK could not open the pdf so I can't comment on that one. I also want to split up the other two and comment on each of them separately. Let's look at the details of what they say, lets read between the lines without reading into the statements: [edit: oops, I did not mean to imply that you read into it. I mean to say that I don't want to make that mistake myself]
"CIGNA Corp. (NYSE:CI) recognizes the historical significance of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law will expand access to health insurance to many who currently do not have coverage."
Basic statements of fact; nothing emotional here, no fear or rage - agreed.
I agree with them that the law is of historical significance. If it becomes enacted we will see if it is of a positive or a negative significance. Cigna did not say if they like the law or not. They may hate it, they may fear retribution if they make negative statements about it - they may love it, they may love only part of it. (actually in hindsight we know that they do not want it repealed and claim as their reason that we have spent too much time making the law, in hindsight we also know that cigna is exempted from the law at present and as an example of a conflict of interest they played a role in shaping the law)
I agree with them that the law will expand coverage to many who do not have coverage. They are no doubt talking about insurance coverage since it is true that many do not have insurance. They are not talking about health care coverage since everyone has access to health care c overage one way or another. They support more people getting insurance. And what else would we expect. A purpose of a business is to have as many customers as possible.
"CIGNA fully supports providing Americans access to quality, affordable health care coverage and acknowledges that some of the aspects of reforms addressed by this new law are overdue, such as eliminating pre-existing conditions from coverage decisions, providing full coverage for preventive services, and opening up access to many who are not currently insured."
I would notice that they said "some" of the reforms are overdue. They could have said "all" or "many" or " a lot", but they said some. The clear meaning is that they only like some of the reforms and not many of them. Of the three they mention each of them expands the pool of people who would "buy" insurance. Now there is a common theme.
"Though impactful to the lives of many, it is CIGNA's strong belief that this law does not adequately improve quality and address the dramatic cost increases of our health care delivery system. In particular, we must change from pay per service (or quantity) to pay for outcomes and efficiency."
They say that the law does not improve quality or care or address he cost of care. For you and I wouldn't those two things be the primary reasons we would want to have such a law? If it does not do that why even have the law?
They want the doctor/patient relationship to change from the present model to a new model. That may be their opinion but the doctor/patient relationship is between you, I and our doctors - not between us and the insurance company.
Here is a discussion of the doctor patient relationship:
"The classic doctor-patient relationship was a celebration of the primacy of individual rights. And, for over 2000 years (at least since the advent of the Hippocratic Oath) guaranteeing the sanctity of that relationship was the basis of all medical ethics.
Until very recently doctors, patients, philosophers and ethicists recognized that, when you are sick, you are no more capable of navigating a complex and hostile healthcare system than are accused felons a complex and hostile legal system, and you are no less in peril if you run afoul of that system. And, just as the felon has a right to a personal advocate, a professional whose job is to protect his individual interests against the conflicting aims of the ?system,? so does the patient. That is (quaint conventional wisdom held), when you are sick, you should be entitled to at least the same protections as when you rob a convenience store. And the doctor-patient relationship was supposed to guarantee you that right.
This is why, throughout the ages, the basic precepts of medical ethics were aimed at guaranteeing the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Fundamentally, these ethical precepts required the physician to place the needs of his or her individual patient above all other considerations.
It should be clear to everyone that, under either our ?old? healthcare system or the one that Obamacare promises us, this formulation of the doctor-patient relationship cannot be allowed to stand. Neither the insurance executives nor government officials can allow spending decisions ? that is, decisions on how to spend their money ? to be made by individual patients (and their personal advocates). For this reason, the classic doctor-patient relationship had to go."
As we can see neither insurance companies nor public health agencies want what is best for patients when it comes to having a sacrosanct relationship with ones doctor in which decisions are made by patients about how to weigh costs and treatments. Everyday on this forum we see complaints about the evil insurance companies trying to ration our supplies, and in Britain and Canada there is also no doubt that rationing has been codified into a mathematical formula. Why would we want to make a switch toward that?
Here is another discussion of that:
"Under Obamacare, the physician is not only released from her fiduciary obligation to her individual patient (i.e., the obligation to place the interests of the patient above all other considerations), but is strictly forbidden from acting in accordance with it. Indeed, elaborate mechanisms are established to assure that physicians will follow the directives which are to be handed down from omnipotent and immutable government panels, directives which will be explicitly aimed at optimizing collective rather than individual outcomes. And whereas physicians have long been discouraged from making healthcare decisions based on individual considerations and needs, Obamacare makes doing so a felony."
Next part of what cigna says:
"Without continued participation of all stakeholders to offer constructive solutions, the current proposal will only expand access and further erode affordability and quality of care for all. This is not a sustainable solution to America?s rising health care cost problem."
Basically they are saying that they want to be a continued voice in shaping the law and that law will expand coverage but will erode affordability and quality of care for all. They also say it is not sustainable. (in hindsight the CBO, economists, head of medicare, and many others have confirmed that the law does not reduce costs)
Again, do we want a new law that forces people to sign onto a system that increases costs and reduces quality? Isn't that the exact opposite of what we were told were the reasons for creating the law? ( I will remind everyone that I did not go searching for this source it was the one provided to us by a proponent of the law)
I can't say if this was a common theme since I could not read the first link. But I can state that cigna does indeed state that (in different words):
change was needed
universal coverage is desireable
and the new law may not go far enough in controlling costs [(technically they say it increases costs)]
There does not seem to be any sense of fear (or rage)
Do we agree with the insurance companies that change was needed? I think most of us do. Is this the right change? A majority of Americans don't think so.
Do we want universal coverage? Cigna did not use those words, and I certainly wont' either. Do I want all people to have quality health care? Absolutely!! But that which is often called UHC is a destroyer of freedom and quality and affordability. Attempting to get low costs and quality by first enacting government UHC is putting the cart before the horse. First lets work on low cost and quality and then we will get all people health care and we will do it without violating the constitution or sacrificing our liberty.
Does the insurance company have any rage or fear? Well since they are active participants in the process of writing the law and it increases the number of customers they have why would they? I would add that many have been claiming that this law will reduce profitability for insurance companies. But since they seem to think that it will not reduce costs for us I suspect they also do not think it will reduce their profitability. Our politicians have told us that the insurance companies are the evil bad guys and that this will reduce their excessive profits but they are active partners together.
Separate names with a comma.