- advertisement -

The Rage Is Not About Health Care

Discussion in 'US Health Care Reform' started by Ellen, Mar 28, 2010.

  1. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    That's my whole point - of course the Insurance companies were regulated during the Bush years - I was being sarcastic when I said "unregulated". Other than imposing a few new rules, things are pretty much the same as before the new law. So why the rage over government regulation now? What exactly does the new law impose that is so drastically different from regulations already in place?

    Honestly, no one has any idea how costs are going to shake out once the new law takes full effect. But clearly, costs were completely out of control before. I forgot to mention, not only did my company's Blue Cross rates go up astronomically every single year, but we accepted reduced coverage and higher copays every single year just to keep the increases to those listed in my post. Truly, I don't see how it could be worse. At least children with pre-existing conditions will now be covered.
     
  2. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    I think that's always feared when underlying conditions shift beneath a large industry, but it's rarely the case. Perhaps this is a sinister plot by the government to drive insurance companies out of business so that the government can "take over" health insurance, but honestly, do you think that companies like Blue Cross and AETNA will roll over and die because of a few new rules? They will adapt to any new rules, just as many other highly regulated companies do every day.
     
  3. pinkpanther

    pinkpanther Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    135
    Unfortunately, I don't think they are going to have a choice. How can a private industry compete with a entity that makes all the rules and gets to set all the prices? Private insurance companies already operate on a small margin of profit, if they are then forced to cover people with costly healthcare bills something has then got to give. Note-I'm NOT saying people with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered. I just think there are other ways to do this.
     
  4. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    Not worried about this in the least - many companies (such as utilities) are for-profits whose prices are regulated by the government. This has been going on for decades and is nothing new.

    I still don't understand why there is so much rage over this issue. This is not a threat to the existence of our country, such declaring war on another country. This can be undone with a new law if it doesn't work; the casualties of war can not be undone. No one will die because of this new law, in fact thousands more may live; in a war, many thousands are sure to die.

    Health care is handled in many ways by many countries. It will work here one way, or the other, but it surely wasn't working before. This is just a new set of rules, enacted by a majority of legislators elected by the American people. Whether better or not, it is not going to be catastrophic. This is not war, it's a new set of health care rules that are worth a try.
     
  5. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I'm sorry but you don't even know what you're saying anymore ... you're just stream of conscience typing.
     
  6. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    For anyone worrying about the insurance companies, here are official statements on the new law from some of the largest insurers:

    Independence Blue Cross
    http://www.ibx.com/pdfs/about_ibc/health_care_reform/IBC_statement__house_passage.pdf

    CIGNA
    http://newsroom.cigna.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1187

    AETNA
    http://www.aetna.com/news/newsReleases/2010/0323_RAW_Statement_HCR.html

    The common theme seems to be that change was needed, universal coverage is desireable, and the new law may not go far enough in controlling costs - not only of insurance policies, byt also for costs of medicine and medical equipment. There does not seem to be any sense of fear (or rage) among these companies.
     
  7. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
  8. Toni

    Toni Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,882
    Agree completely. For those of us who are older the moderate Republican Party of my youth (who my 80 year old Irish grandfather, observing the policies said party passed every time they came to power since he emmigrated to this country at 17) urged me to boycot, bears NO relationship to the Republican Party today. Grandpa gave "the speech" to each of us, starting at age 15. We used to laugh about it. I am no longer laughing at his observations. The Republican party has been highjacked by a bunch of right wing Christians who do not represent the viewpoint of the majority. And they are a scary bunch, including Palin. Thank goodness her reality show is going to be on the beauties of Alaska and they did not give her a talk show. Wills, if you can hear me now, I'm listening!
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2010
  9. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    Honestly, I think cable news and the rise of the internet might be the two worst things to happen to political discourse in this country, well, ever. Political talking heads do not gain readers/viewers by being calm and thoughtful, by finding middle ground with the other side, by occasionally admitting that the other side's ideas might be sound or have any merit. In fact, look what happened to David Frum. He got fired.

    No. They gain readers/viewers by eviscerating any idea the other side comes up with. By using hyperbole and fear and by whipping people up into a frenzy. Most Americans haven't read the bill, don't even really have a basic understanding of economics, and rely on cable news or the internet to tell them how to think.

    I wish leaders of both parties would stand up and say, "Enough." I fear that won't happen until someone actually gets shot, however. And even then, I'm sure they will disavow any personal responsibility they had in the matter. :(

    The solution: People need to stop listening to Glenn Beck, stop listening to Keith Olbermann, and get their NEWS from NEWS sources. Not people who can only survive by riling up as many people as possible.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2010
  10. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    I think they will rake in the cash with all of these new enrollees, and then cash out when the requirements take effect.

    If you look back carefully at this president's words, you will see that a universal system is what he wants, and he repeatedly epmhasizes that it will have to be done incrementally. His words on these topics are easily found, but since you seem to be a reasonable person, I will save myself the trouble of finding those links and posting them again.

    Again, this bill does NOTHING to control costs. Zip, zero, nada. If it does, I'm all ears.

    What are your thoughts on government raising taxes on goods and services it already pays for? Does this seem like a logical cost-control step to you?
     
  11. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    Given that Henry Waxman is hauling CEOs before Congress to answer for daring to state what the bill's economic impact is going to be, I think I would be VERY hesistant to publicly say exactly what I thought of the bill.

    The SEC requires that publicly-held companies report anything that will change their earnings outlooks, which is what AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and others have done, and Waxman's going to call them on the carpet for it.

    As a business owner, would you dare say anything about this government's actions publicly if it could be avoided? I wouldn't either.
     
  12. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    How's your electricity bill looking these days?

    Have you noticed that gas is starting to creep right back up? Imagine what heating oil is going to cost by this winter.

    This hasn't been brought up yet, but we do not have the money to pay for this bill, and no amount of accounting tricks in the legislation will change that. We continue to pile on the debt, the dollar continues to sink, and imports skyrocket...including petroleum based products. And the impending drop in our bond rating from AAA to AA? What do you suppose will be the impact of that?

    You may not see it as a threat to our country, but I most certainly do. And by a "majority" of elected officials, you mean "by a slim majority from one party that would not have happened were it not for some well-placed exemptions and flat-out bribes."
     
  13. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
    Nick, Nick, Nick... :p

    What would a world without regulation look like? Maybe like our annual $18K/year premium and out-of-pocket health bill -- with no choice of providers, since the employer picks them -- not knowing if procedures will be approved, knowing we'll lose it all if we lose our jobs, and no end in sight for staggering increases in price each and every year. What happens when the banks run amok without regulations? Oh yeah... we just saw that.

    Should we all live in caves, slugging it out on our own to survive? Or do we want publicly-funded highways, schools, fire departments, libraries, etc? Without federal programs, most parts of the US would have never gotten electricity in the first place. Do you want to scoop your water up with a pail and boil it or do you want water delivered to your home in pipes :D with gov't regulations about the purity of it? Do you want your food to have certain safety standards? Do you want the insulin you inject into your child to have saftey studies and regulations in place for purity and sterility?

    I'll take that multitude of great programs put in place by Richard Nixon. I'm going to paste his list of accomplishments in again, since I got ignored... twice. Republican presidents used to actually care about the public good -- Dem presidents too! Imagine if we went back to them creating programs and policy to benefit people. If they worked together to come up with the best both sides had to offer, instead of polarization too great to get anything passed without a filbuster-proof majority.

    Nixon's partial list of accomplishments:

    -Benefits to individuals increased, including medicare, SS, food aid and public assistance.
    -Defense spending decreased by 3% of GNP.
    -States and municipalities received billions in revenue sharing
    -The federal gov't set wages and prices.
    -Created SSI
    -Had a balanced budget, but used deficit spending to reduce unemployment
    -Detached dollar from the gold standard
    -Reimposed a 10% investment tax
    -Gave assistance to the auto industry with removal of excise tax
    -Put more regulation on economy of any president since FDR.
    -Believed in using gov't wisely to benefit people.
    -Signed the Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and established many new gov't agencies, including the EPA, OHSA and the Council on Environmental Quality.
    -Established Consumer Safety Commission
    -Established desegregation in schools -- felt racism was the greatest moral failure of the United States.
    -Implemented the first significant affirmative action plan in the nation.
    -Endorsed the Equal Rights Admendment
    -Signed Title IX, prohibiting gender discrimination in federally-funded schools
    -Signed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act
    -Signed the Title X Act, which helped with family planning and contraceptives
    -Sent men to the moon.
    -Established the space shuttle program
    -Set up cooperative space program between the USA and the USSR
    -Set up international relations with a communist country
    -Worked towards nuclear missile treaties
    -Called for comprehensive health insurance -- mandated employers to provide health insurance for employees -- proposed universal healthcare and Medicaid for all.
    -Lowered speed limit to conserve gas during energy crisis.

    If Watergate hadn't happened, Ted Kennedy and Nixon would have worked out an agreement for universal healthcare and this big argument wouldn't be happening and we wouldn't all be concerned and worried about our children's healthcare.
     
  14. Toni

    Toni Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,882
    I do think the Dems won by a landslide in House and Senate and Presidential race. I do believe they had a mandate from the people to enact Healthcare Reform. Obama ran on the most conservative of the Dems healthcare plans and, yes, I believe that is why Obama won. Clearly this country was not ready for Hillary's version. But the bill passed was Romney's version, not even what Obama first proposed. No, the country is not yet ready for sweeping reform.
     
  15. pinkpanther

    pinkpanther Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    135

    Utilities are a monopoly, they don't have competition (except for electricity in TX). We are being told it can't be undone, that the democrats have put a provision in the bill that future congresses cannot repeal this, that's disturbing at the very least. Yes, the system has issues but why in the world are we building a completely new house when we can remodel one room? I think there are lots of things people are upset about but some of those are the way in which this bill was passed, there was NO transparency (thought that promised to us) and we still don't know everything that's in this bill (nor do the lawmakers but they voted for it anyway). I understand where you're coming from and you make some good points. I don't agree with it but you do make some compelling arguments! :D
     
  16. pinkpanther

    pinkpanther Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    135
    We'll agree to disagree on what a landslide means! :D 52% is barely squeaking by! :) I DO agree with you that we aren't ready for a sweeping reform-pretty insightful!
     
  17. pinkpanther

    pinkpanther Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    135

    pretty much sums it up! I have yet to hear how we are going to pay for this. Even Obama said we can't sustain the debt we had BEFORE healthcare!
     
  18. pinkpanther

    pinkpanther Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    135
    Get a new pair of glasses! :p Btw, what's your take on children with pre-existing conditions being excluded from coverage for 4 years?
     
  19. Becky Stevens mom

    Becky Stevens mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,719
    Now see I do wear glasses. Are you implying that people with glasses arent able to see things clearly therefore dont have the right to express an opinion? Funny how things can get slanted however we like isnt it?:rolleyes:;)
     
  20. Brensdad

    Brensdad Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,383
    Rella, Rella, Rella, LOL.

    Of course I don't intend that we have a world with no regulation. That would make me an anarchist, and frankly, my face gets all itchy if I try to grow a beard.

    All I'm saying is that more regulation only adds cost, it never lowers it. And since I see government-based care from the inside, I can promise that regulations that are meant to control costs only serve to control access....which I suppose is the same thing.
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice