Re: OT: Interesting article on the healthcare bill

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" wrote:
>>
>> Except the CBO even said (in their cover letter) their numbers are not
>> accurate because they haven't seen the reconciliation...
>
> The CBO figures are, as they always are, based on the bill as currently
> written. There will be changes and those will make a difference but the
> differences will be fractional -- never enough to turn what is a
> windfall gain for the econmy into anything like a loss.
>
>> Could be a moot point anyway since the Senate parliamentarian
>> is now saying that President Obama would have to sign a health
>> care bill into law before Congress can amend it with a
>> reconciliation measure.
>
> That's just procedure. It doesn't change the nature of the bill nor it's
> benefits.
>
>> I'm just having trouble figuring out why there is such a rush to pass
>> something that won't take effect for four (or more) years.
>
> That's easy. The Republicans, along with a few dishonest Democrats (yes,
> we have them, too) have been very successful in their campaign of lies
> and are almost certain to take back the majority in the House. This is
> the only time we are likely to be able to get it done.
>
>> It's also a little troublesome that the mandate to get insurance
>> (which is troublesome in itself) is permanent but the tax credits
>> to help poor folks afford it are only temporary. Even most
>> democrats are now saying that premiums won't go down.
>
> I'm pretty sure that was done to appease Republicans during the endless
> committee meetings. Democrats made the stupid mistake of trying to
> negotiate with the Republicans. The Republicans never for a moment
> intended to vote yes, no matter if we gave them every thing they
> demanded. The whole point was to "stio Obama." You can't negotiate with
> people like that. We should have simply voted on each measure we wanted
> and completely ignored Republican input, then passed the bill with a
> public option. That's the problem with our Democratic leaders. They're
> too nice.  :^)
>
>> The fines for not offering insurance to employees is STILL
>> less than the cost of providing it. Incentive for business to
>> let their employees fend for themselves - employees who,
>> at the lower levels, will only get help paying for that insurance
>> for a few years.
>
> We'll have to deal with this again and again, all because we tried to
> negotiate fairly with the GOP. Had we done it the way Republicans do
> things (ram it down their thoats), this would not have to be done. We'd
> give poor people a permanent break.. you know, what the Republicans
> wanted to do for the rich.
>

I know you are quite the ideologue when it comes to republican/democrat
but the problems in the system cannot be tack solely upon any ONE party
or president.

I would have had a lot more respect for Obama if some of his
appointments hadn't raised my eyebrows.

Geitner at the IRS?  With his delinquent taxes he couldn't have been
hired by the IRS - but he's put in charge?  Really?

Clinton totally discredited herself with her Bosnia war story and she
becomes Secretary of State?  Really?

I'm not saying Bush or any other previous president was any better or worse.

We need a viable third (or fourth) party but the two running the show
now have everyone everyone so cowed and terrified of the "other side"
that any real options don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

We need leaders that actually respect and adhere to the constitution and
stop shitting all over the tenth amendment.

Laws are made BY rich people (of both parties) to benefit rich people.

>> It doesn't provide people with the ability to select varying
>> levels of coverage like you can with most other insurances...
>
> That's not entirely correct. Most people will continue with the same
> insurance carriers they have. They will have whatever coverage choices
> they had before the bill. Their primary immediate benefite are no
> lifetime cap (essential for people like me), no pre-existing coverage
> rules, no getting dropped if you get sick and a few other really
> important protections. Those who buy through the exchange may have fewer
> options than those who already had insurance but without the bill they
> have no coverage at all.
>

You misread what I was saying - currently we we cannot select varying
levels of coverage like you can with most other insurance.

I would think a bill that is supposed to protect the consumers
(citizens) would address it.



>> I would still like to see HSA's with catastrophic coverage - I see
>> what you said about the HSA's not being interest bearing, but
>> neither were checking accounts way back in the day.  Sooner
>> or later, if the market is allowed to work, some HSA managers
>> would start offering interest as a way to pull in customers.
>
> Perhaps, but if they work for the insurance industry I can't imagine
> a time when this will acrrue to the benefit of consumers.
>

The HSA will be invested by the insurance company - they will make money
off of your money - eventually some may try (as a way of bringing folks
over to them) passing a small amount of the interest along.  They will
still make money.

As folks become more cognizant of what they are paying for a doctor's
visit, rather than a co-pay of $20 (and they have no idea what the rest
of the charge is - for the most part) then those prices will begin to
drop (tort reform would help that a great deal as well).  Most folks
will find their HSA balances growing every year when they are young and
healthy which will give them a nice cushion for later on when they need
the money.  If they incur expenses beyond what they can handle - the
catastrophic coverage kicks in.

Catastrophic coverage will work like other types of insurance - most
folks will never need it so there is a net profit in selling it.



>> Right now, almost no aspect of our health care (or coverage) deals
>> directly with the consumers. Employers make deals with the various
>> insurance providers, the insurance providers make deals with the
>> various care providers and everything gets rammed down the consumer's
>> throat.
>
> Yep.
>
>> [snip a bunch of stuff we agree about]
>
>> Our medical care system is not the horror show some make it out to be.
>
> It's not really the medical care system that's at fault, though it
> certainly
> has areas that could improve. It's the isurance industry that rakes 20-30%
> off the top while providing nothing useful to anyone.
>

Actually Insurance companies profits are only about 2-3% which puts them
well behind drug companies and service providers.

More than likely their profit margins are so low because so much of
their revenue goes towards a few salaries at the top...