Republican Fear Mongering about Medicare Changes is Working Despite Being Lies

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, my preferred method would be to eliminate the basis of our two party system, by changing the way we vote -- say, to a rated voting system. This way, people can vote for more than one candidate, and more importantly have no fear of wasting their vote -- voting for a third party candidate would no longer mean you lose your chance to vote for the leading or second place candidate. This would mean that we would no longer be limited to two "real" parties. With several competing parties, politics would no longer be a zero sum game. Taking a hit to your reputation to reduce another party's popularity would become a losing strategy, since there would be other parties to chose from.

 

But that would require a lot of support to accomplish. On a smaller scale, perhaps someone could make a website dedicated to keeping politics clean, pointing out all dishonesty in our politicians and backing it up with facts and references. Likewise, a website dedicated to the various issues that get discussed would help if done well. For example, it could have discussion forums for people to argue extensively about the details, a page for each side to summarize their arguments or opinions.

[bascule]

I would love instant runoff voting, particularly for president. This would allow me to vote for the person I really want to vote for without worrying about "wasting my vote" or depriving a major candidate of the votes they need to win.

[iNow]

Returning briefly to this idea of legitimization... This is just downright pathetic.

 

 

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/weekly-standard-newsroom-erupts-into-cheers-at-news-of-olympics.php?ref=fpa

When the International Olympic Committee voted against Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics this morning -- after the President and First Lady flew to Copenhagen to push for it in person -- the Weekly Standard newsroom burst into applause.

 

"Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters," wrote editor John McCormack in a post titled "Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!" <

click the link to read more of the asinine quotes from various sources on this issue

>

 

 

I mean... Come on... Really? I am so ashamed of my country right now, and my shame stems directly from the fact that I love it, not that I "hate America first."

[bascule]

Returning briefly to this idea of legitimization... This is just downright pathetic.

 

 

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/weekly-standard-newsroom-erupts-into-cheers-at-news-of-olympics.php?ref=fpa

When the International Olympic Committee voted against Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics this morning -- after the President and First Lady flew to Copenhagen to push for it in person -- the Weekly Standard newsroom burst into applause.

 

"Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters," wrote editor John McCormack in a post titled "Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!" <

click the link to read more of the asinine quotes from various sources on this issue

>

 

 

I mean... Come on... Really? I am so ashamed of my country right now, and my shame stems directly from the fact that I love it, not that I "hate America first."

 

You should check out the Joe Scarborough article I linked on Republicans cheering for Chicago losing out on the Olympics

[Mr Skeptic]

You should check out the Joe Scarborough article I linked on Republicans cheering for Chicago losing out on the Olympics

 

That's insane! Are there any names to those faces? Edit: iNow's link has the names.

 

Hey, this is the sort of thing we should start collecting now, so that come election year we can put some perspective on things.

[iNow]

It turns out that the fear mongering failed. The healthcare reform bill passed congress tonight by a margin of 219 votes to 212.

 

Krugman put forth an article in the NYTimes after the vote that concluded an hour ago entitled "Fear Strikes Out" which touches nicely on the themes I endeavored to explore with this thread when opening it so many months ago.

 

Read for yourself.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

 

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

 

<...>

 

I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? <

More at the link

>

[Phi for All]

It turns out that the fear mongering failed. The healthcare reform bill passed congress tonight by a margin of 219 votes to 212.

I'm still a little stunned. It's a good start, more to be done, but hopefully the fear will keep receding.

 

If I say I'm breathing a little easier, is that admitting to a pre-existing condition?

[Pangloss]

I don't believe in being negative and focusing on down sides, so I'm just going to hope that the new rules that affect the insurance industry are sufficient to overcome the potential pitfalls and enormous expense of this plan. It is possible that it could go the way that Democrats and the CBO say, and now Congress will just need to work really hard over the next ten years to ensure that it does.

 

The thing that is most important for dissenters like myself to keep in mind here, in my opinion, is that this may be the best plan that was possible. We always knew that no plan would be perfect, so maybe with some hard work and determination, identifying the problems when they come up and knocking them out as best as we can, we can achieve the two main goals that we all seem to want: Lowering the expense, and making sure that as many people as possible are covered.

 

If we can overcome burdens that we ourselves sometimes make harder than they really need to be, doesn't that say even more about our ability and our determination?

[ecoli]

I don't understand why the left is so happy about giving such a huge windfall to insurance companies.

 

If I've heard correctly, they get millions of new business from gov't subsidies without being taxed for it (until 2013, at least).

 

Sounds more like same old corporatism than reform.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I thought the point of the bill was to extend coverage to those who can't afford it, not punish the big bad insurance companies. By subsidizing coverage and removing claim caps, the bill takes steps to meet that goal.

[ecoli]

I thought the point of the bill was to extend coverage to those who can't afford it, not punish the big bad insurance companies. By subsidizing coverage and removing claim caps, the bill takes steps to meet that goal.

 

I bring this up because a popular heuristic from the left is that health insurance is too expensive because of greedy insurance corps.

 

The current bill seems to be a compromise between extending coverage in a way that will create profits.

 

It seems like an accurate parallel is taxing cane sugar, and subsidizing corn to help American business and calling it free trade.

 

Honestly, if it wasn't such a hot button goldmine for republicans, I bet a lot of the Bush flavored neocons would have supported this.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I haven't found a good summary of the bill yet, but one thing I heard was that it would require health insurance companies to spend at least 85% of premiums on actual healthcare, rather than taking as much as they can.

 

Now, I don't know (a) if that's true or (b) just how large their overhead is, anyway, but it seems like an interesting start to reducing exorbitant profits. But if they're already at that 85% mark, I guess it's pointless.

[ecoli]

I haven't found a good summary of the bill yet, but one thing I heard was that it would require health insurance companies to spend at least 85% of premiums on actual healthcare, rather than taking as much as they can.

 

Now, I don't know (a) if that's true or (b) just how large their overhead is, anyway, but it seems like an interesting start to reducing exorbitant profits. But if they're already at that 85% mark, I guess it's pointless.

 

found the info: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html

 

says they currently spend ~74% (though I assume it varies between companies) and the new requirements are 80-85%. Doesn't seem like a huge change. My bet is that the new customer base and fed dollars will more than make up for this.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Whoa, nice overview there. I'm going to have to look through that more carefully. After all the debates I completely lost track of what the new bill covers.

[Phi for All]

I bring this up because a popular heuristic from the left is that health insurance is too expensive because of greedy insurance corps.

According to a recent study*, 62% of all bankruptcies in the US in 2007 were because of medical expenses. Of those who filed due to medical expenses, almost 80% had health insurance. This may not equate to greed in the insurance industry, but it does show that concerns from the left are not merely based in "greedy corporation" ideology. Something is inherently wrong and it's happening between our healthcare dollars and our health somewhere.

 

 

 

 

* Himmelstein, D, E., et al, “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study, American Journal of Medicine, May 2009.

[jackson33]

It's not a NEW BILL, it's the Senate Bill that passed Christmas Eve 2009 (60-40), unamended and passed. Another bill, a 'Reconciliation Bill' was also passed, basically recommending certain changes to the passed Senate Bill, including to the Emergency Education Funding Act, created during the Banking Crisis 2008 (basically creating a new Federal permanent responsibility) and a House Chamber responsibility (the emergancy funding part). Any changes made, budgetary in nature, will require an additional Senate vote, requiring a plurality vote only 51-49 or 50-50 with the VP making the deciding vote, after the President signs off on that original Senate Bill. It's a bit complicated from here, but many things could happen, but highly unlikely anything will happen. Their objective (Democrats), would be to keep their bill in tact, that the House passed, otherwise it could go back to the House for another vote, not stray into the substance of that original Senate Bill.

 

On limiting profits, for an insurance company, I suppose there could be a limit for profits, but the object is to regulate any future profits with a certain limit set for even a request by an Insurance Company, no different than States do today (regulate) on Utilities. For instance a utility can only request an increase cost to their consumers, if profit levels fall below a pre-set limit.

 

With all this talk over opinions; This is the way I understand the situation and I'm well aware others may disagree...Having said that, it is my opinion, many things in that original Senate Bill could be used to alter that substance, shortly after or long after the Bill is enacted, which is the day the Bill is signed, by the President.

[ecoli]

According to a recent study*, 62% of all bankruptcies in the US in 2007 were because of medical expenses. Of those who filed due to medical expenses, almost 80% had health insurance. This may not equate to greed in the insurance industry, but it does show that concerns from the left are not merely based in "greedy corporation" ideology. Something is inherently wrong and it's happening between our healthcare dollars and our health somewhere.

 

 

 

 

* Himmelstein, D, E., et al, “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study, American Journal of Medicine, May 2009.

 

I'm not really sure this is a great counter to the point I was trying to make.

 

If 80% had health insurance, than this bill doesn't change much, since we're not changing the quality of care available. As far as I can tell, insurance companies will still be able to deny coverage based on whatever specific policies allow them to deny coverage (except, now, for pre-existing conditions.)

 

Also, I didn't say that the "greedy corporation" heuristic was a false one. Corporations are necessarily greedy, and that isn't always a good thing.

 

I don't see, however, how handing them 32 million more customers is going to make them any less greedy, however. There are a few new rules and some new taxes to help pay for it, but you're essentially just handing a huge new customer base to insurers, and the bill will be footed by the US tax payers via the Federal gov't.

 

What insurance company wouldn't be drooling over this?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On limiting profits, for an insurance company, I suppose there could be a limit for profits, but the object is to regulate any future profits with a certain limit set for even a request by an Insurance Company, no different than States do today (regulate) on Utilities. For instance a utility can only request an increase cost to their consumers, if profit levels fall below a pre-set limit.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not proposing limiting insurance company profit... but I want them to profit from improving efficiency and through fierce market competition, not through gov't mandates and free lunches.

[The Bear's Key]

I don't see, however, how handing them 32 million more customers is going to make them any less greedy, however. There are a few new rules and some new taxes to help pay for it, but you're essentially just handing a huge new customer base to insurers, and the bill will be footed by the US tax payers via the Federal gov't.

 

What insurance company wouldn't be drooling over this?

Exactly what I don't like about it. The public option wouldn've been a nice competition against insurance. Then you don't even have to worry about pre-existing conditions, as such a dirty habit would lose them many customers to the government plan.

 

So if all insurers cover all medical needs, the playing field starts with everone covered and no health insurance business would lose out if a competitor started the pre-existing denyial game for coverage.

 

I'm not proposing limiting insurance company profit... but I want them to profit from improving efficiency and through fierce market competition.

Obvious question -- didn't they already fail to do just that?

[Mr Skeptic]

Indeed; when I heard of the effect the healthcare bill was having on the stock prices of medical insurance companies, I started worrying.

[Phi for All]

I'm not really sure this is a great counter to the point I was trying to make.

It wasn't meant to be a counter, so perhaps I was unclear. I was suggesting that it's not just some leftist ideology that paints insurance companies as greedy. Their profit is an unnecessary drain between my health and my health dollars, especially when a public option could give me at least the same coverage without me paying for their auditors to deny me coverage when I'm counting on it most.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Indeed; when I heard of the effect the healthcare bill was having on the stock prices of medical insurance companies, I started worrying.

Ditto. In fact, I also want to start watching who pays for attack ads on various bills. This should tell us when the legislation is starting to hit them where it hurts.

[toastywombel]

According to a recent study*, 62% of all bankruptcies in the US in 2007 were because of medical expenses. Of those who filed due to medical expenses, almost 80% had health insurance. This may not equate to greed in the insurance industry, but it does show that concerns from the left are not merely based in "greedy corporation" ideology. Something is inherently wrong and it's happening between our healthcare dollars and our health somewhere.

 

 

 

 

* Himmelstein, D, E., et al, “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study, American Journal of Medicine, May 2009.

 

It is because insurance companies are essentially "middle-men" who make money off of having money.

[Pangloss]

Well that's the concern, that Democrats have just fed the insurance companies in exactly the same way (and on an even bigger scale) that Republicans fed the drug companies with the prescription drug benefit -- two massive entitlements that basically say to these massive companies "how much money would work for you?" The hope is that there will be a net savings based on reduced load on Medicare, and the projection was supported by the CBO.

 

George Will said on Sunday (no idea what his source was, so take this with a grain of salt) that in 1967 Medicare was projected to have an annual cost of $16 billion by 1990, but the actual cost by 1990 was over $100 billion. So really the only way this is going to work (and I think both Democrats and Republicans agree on this) is by making sure that we keep the expense of this program down, and that we do something about the skyrocketing cost of health care at the root level.

 

And guess what this bill didn't address? The cost of health care at the root level. But okay, if you want to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs, and we're in this mess now, so I expect them to get cracking. I wanna hear those hens SQUEAL.

[Phi for All]

George Will said on Sunday (no idea what his source was, so take this with a grain of salt) that in 1967 Medicare was projected to have an annual cost of $16 billion by 1990, but the actual cost by 1990 was over $100 billion.

In 1967, insurance companies based your rates on on your age, and used actuarial tables to figure what the risk pool needed from you. The insurance companies had loyal from their customer base because if you switched insurers, your new rate was based on your current age.

 

When managed healthcare insurance took over in the 70s, they claimed it was to give us a choice so we weren't locked in to one company. It was a scam, and obviously one that artificially increased our costs by at least a factor of six. And somewhere along the line, they started denying coverage too, and I think it was to try and gain back through fear the loyalty they lost through deception. People are afraid of losing their coverage by rocking the boat.

 

Fear mongering and health insurance go hand in hand, and that's why I think universal healthcare is something that makes good fiscal sense for this country. I hope this bill will be at least a first step towards something better, since I think we deserve it.

[Pangloss]

I'm sure there are a lot of differences between health care in 1967 and 1990. I wonder what differences there will be between health care today and health care in 2020. My point is this bill depends on today's prediction of what health care in 2020 will cost. I'd rather have universal health care, even with its attendant cost concerns, because at least then we'd have a lot more clarity and control over cost right from the get-go.

 

But as I said earlier, I'm going to accept this and not focus on criticism. I'll be hoping for the best and pressing for vigilance by lawmakers on both sides to make sure it happens the way we all hope it can.

[ecoli]

It wasn't meant to be a counter, so perhaps I was unclear. I was suggesting that it's not just some leftist ideology that paints insurance companies as greedy. Their profit is an unnecessary drain between my health and my health dollars, especially when a public option could give me at least the same coverage without me paying for their auditors to deny me coverage when I'm counting on it most.

 

It's is necessary to attract investors. It's unnecessary in the sense that you're not getting what you paid for because of it. This is a tell tale sign of a highly demanded good/service operating in an artificially uncompetitive market.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm sure there are a lot of differences between health care in 1967 and 1990. I wonder what differences there will be between health care today and health care in 2020.

 

Yup.. this is the problem with the much touted CBO report. They underestimate future costs, and therefore the effect of the taxes that must be levied to pay for them. We'll save money, compared to the current system, but only if all things remain equal. Supporters are overlooking this last part.

 

My point is this bill depends on today's prediction of what health care in 2020 will cost. I'd rather have universal health care, even with its attendant cost concerns, because at least then we'd have a lot more clarity and control over cost right from the get-go.

 

I don't buy this. Is anybody worried about the price of computers in 2020 and demanding the gov't take over? What about cars or car insurance? What about something even more important than health care: supermarkets and farms?

 

I don't agree with the heuristic that gov't ownership can control costs... It can institute price controls, but this general leads to shortages.

 

I keep hammering this point over and over again. Without profit, there's little incentive for innovation. I don't understand how, when the US gov't spends more on health care than any other govt in the world, people can still say, with a straight face, that the problem is with free markets.

 

There is too much bad regulation in place for the market to be considered, in any way, a free one.

Edited March 23, 2010 by ecoli
Consecutive posts merged.