So in what is supposed to be an assurance that people can “keep their plans if they like them,” Obama will be forcing millions of workers to lose their plans whether they like them and want to keep them or not.

This argument was made during the Medicare and Medicaid debates as well, it was untrue then, it is untrue now.

This argument was made during the Medicare and Medicaid debates as well, it was untrue then, it is untrue now.

2009-09-24 12:17:36

Your lies are still lies no matter how often you repeat them, w_u.

This argument was made during the Medicare and Medicaid debates as well, it was untrue then, it is untrue now.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-24 12:17:36

Those two programs cover limited segments of the population rather than being open to everyone, and still, they have helped to account for the rising costs of healthcare as the government undercuts the actual price of procedures done for those using those two programs. Those costs get passed on to the private system making prices go up.

Also, it's a poor argument to point out that just because a thing didn't occur in the past, it won't happen now. How many times do you have to find out that your logic is flawed before you start to realize how weak it is.

"The weatherman told me to get in the basement the last time the tornado sirens went off and nothing happened. If it didn't happen before, it won't happen this time …"

"They say you shouldn't walk home alone after dark because you might get raped. It's never happened before, so it won't happen this time …"

"I go surfing out here all the time, but I've never seen a shark. Just because the lifeguards say one is in the area doesn't mean I'll get attacked this time …"

Posted by aharris

2009-09-24 12:58:38

aharris,

its also a pretty weak argument to say that something will happen with absolutly no facts to back that up, no indications that public insurance has made health care prices rise, no indication that public insurance would mean that business would just up and fold coverage, yet you have no problem making those arguments, so please spare us the weak argument routine.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-24 12:17:36

This argument was made during the Medicare and Medicaid debates as well, it was untrue then, it is untrue now.

Except, of course, that they did. The senior market for non-supplemental health insurance is now essentially nonexistant.

Also, are you sure you want to make the fiscal and actuarial disaster that is Medicare the model for this country's entire medical system?

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-24 13:15:05

w_u, it's well known that the government undercuts the cost of health care.

A hip replacement gets only an average of $10,000/$12,000 reimbursement … total … from the government. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-01-co…

For the uninsured, it costs an average of $32,000/$45,000. http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/hip-replace…

Now, there is a considerable discrepancy between those two prices. The government is paying less than average price. That means the rest of what the government doesn't pay for is shifted to be made up elsewhere. Do you think that medical facilities can consistently operate at a loss and continue to do business? Since, no sane person claims that is the case, then the money must be made up somewhere, somehow … and that's covered by those of us not in the government system.

http://www.biomet.com/corporate/ceoBlog/postDetai…

Reimbursement rates for hip and knee replacements.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/hip-replace…

The cost of a hip replacement.

As you can see, there is a significant difference in the two amounts. So, unless medical providers are simply eating the additional cost beyond medicare reimbursement and somehow managing to keep in the black enough to make a living, those missing costs are being reassigned elsewhere. That would likely be reassigned to those of us paying out of the private system.

"The senior market for non-supplemental health insurance is now essentially nonexistant."

To expand on that just a bit, at the time Medicare hit the streets, all private insurers were mandated to be secondary payers on claims for those over 65. That got relaxed a bit in 1980 with MSP, but for most enrollees, Medicare still operates as their primary payer. In practice, what this means is that if you're over 65 and have a separate health care policy which is not a Medi-Gap policy or a Medicare Advantage policy, about all it covers is part of the co-pays and deductibles which are incurred under Medicare. A whole sector of the health insurance market was essentially put out of business with a stroke of LBJ's pen.

After 1980, Medicare created a niche market when they authorised private insurers to sell Medi-Gap insurance. The Medi-Gap market is highly controlled in that there are only 12 policies (Plans A – L) which can be sold, and the coverages are defined by Medicare. So a Plan C Medi-Gap policy is the same with Aetna as it is with Humana, as it is with any of the Blue Cross affiliates.

The second niche market which Medicare created were the Medicare Advantage plans in which the insurer takes a capitated payment from the feds and a monthly premium from the insured and uses that to fund an expanded menu of services for the insureds. These programmes are under direct threat under the current reform plans, and people who now have them can expect that whatever the government does, Medicare Advantage is probably not long for this world. "If you like your current plan, you can keep it…" Well, not quite. If you have Medicare Advantage, which millions of seniors do, you're very likely to lose it soon.

"This argument was made during the Medicare and Medicaid debates as well, it was untrue then, it is untrue now."

Today is the second day running you've made the assertion that back in 1965 there were people proclaiming that Medicaid would put insurers out of business. I'd like to see a cite or two backing this claim up. I've been around health insurance business for 35 years and I've never heard anyone else make that claim, which is why I suspect you're just pulling that one out of your butt.

Time for a history lesson: (cue wavy lines)

From it's inception in 1965, Medicaid was intended to be solely for those who couldn't afford or didn't qualify for private insurance. In other words, it was strategically intended not to compete with private insurance at all in any state. Also, Medicaid isn't a consolidated federal programme like Medicare is. What we all refer to as Medicaid is actually 50 different programmes run by the respective states, and there are huge differences as you go from state to state in what they cover and the rates which drive provider reimbursements. Some of the programmes even operate under different names – California's Medicaid programme is called MediCal, for example. The programmes are funded mutually by the feds and the states (more by the feds than the states in most cases), but since it's administered by the various states, there's no one single Medicaid programme which is administered by the feds.

(cue wavy lines again)

So unless you have some specific cite from someone circa 1965 claiming that Medicaid was going to put private insurers out of business, I'm not buying your blanket pronouncement, WU. Please don't bore me with chatter about Medicare, since that's a completely different beast which is administered by the feds, and about which there were dire misgivings back when it was implemented.

Fast forward to 2009, almost 45 years later, and we've got a Medicare system which is barreling toward bankruptcy like a speeding freight train. Most analysts have been using the word unsustainable to describe Medicare for the past few years. Additionally, since the introduction of Medicare, private insurers have pretty much thrown in the towel on the senior market, save the two niches mentioned above, so in the final analysis, the introduction of Medicare did have a deleterious effect on the private insurance market, and it's a fiscal black hole of spiraling costs. Double bonus fail.

in what is supposed to be an assurance that people can “keep their plans if they like them,” …

Wrong. Haven't you noticed that the legal department forced Obama to stop making that false assertion? Now it's, "You won't be forced to change your plan"

If you're too stupid to read between those lines, then you deserve the socialist hell hole you dream of.

its also a pretty weak argument to say that something will happen with absolutly no facts to back that up,

And yet, you do so here on a daily basis. Then you run like a little girl when proven wrong.

Posted by martinhale

2009-09-24 14:44:11

Well played. "golf clap"

http://www.ethiconendo.com/dtcf/st/Fact_Sheet_2009_Hip.p... http://www.ethiconendo.com/dtcf/st/Fact_Sheet_2009_Hip.p...

The reimbursement that Medicare gives for hip replacements.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/hip-replace…

The average cost of a hip replacement.

If the government doesn't underpay via Medicare, then how else do you explain the missing money? How do you think hospitals and providers make up for the shortfall? Likely by shifting those costs onto everyone else. That's only one part of the reason health care costs keep spiraling.

You know, w_u, I tried posting links, but I wasn't able to. So I'll just tell you how to see what a hip replacement costs (google the "cost of a hip replacement"). Then I searched "Medicare reimbursement for a hip replacement." The amounts don't match; ergo, the government pays less than the total cost of the procedure leaving the hospital and providers involved looking for other ways to make up the shortfall.

aharris:

The example you just cited is why Medicare is being refused at an increasing number of providers offices. The Medicare system forces providers to subsidise the care provided to their Medicare patients by charging more to their non-Medicare patients to recover their a)lost income, and b)un-reimbursed expenses.

shut up hoggo nobody cares what you think

Nancy and the Blue Dogs are counting on the short attention span Americans are noted for to slide this takeover by us….

Notice how all the Blue Dog liars say they are "against a public option" but for all the rest of the takeover?

They are counting on us not knowing what is in the rest and not mounting a vigerous oppostion….

This week was wasted focusing on side-show issues and news events – not much focus on HC

Again, any so called compromise with Fed regulation, Individual Mandates, and Subsides is still GOVT Health care – its just a stealth version…

Here is a great new Article on what the Bacus cramdown bill will contain:

http://healthcarehorserace.com/opinion/09242009/o…

Key quote:

“Once again we see that Barack Obama cannot be relied on to tell America the truth. During the late presidential campaign, Team Obama attacked Hillary Clinton for having mandates for health insurance yet now he is himself touting forced mandates on the people.

In 2008 an Obama flyer slammed Hillary for her forced insurance purchase suggestion. That flyer told Obamaites that, “Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it.” This was bad, Obama thought.

That was then.

Today Obama is pushing the same idea that he attacked Hillary for only but a year ago. In his speech to a joint session of Congress, for instance, Obama told the nation, “That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance…”

Why isnt the GOP and conservatives ripping Obama for flip-flopping?

We should be ripping into these Individual Mandates right now!

I admit that Destimulus, cap n tax, ACORN, brainwashed school children, the UN fiasco, etc are all bad but they can all be fixed or repealled

HC is much different – if passed in any form, and no they DO NOT NEED A PUBLIC OPTION TO GET A TAKEOVER, it will be premenant and there will be no getting rid of it once the subsidy checks go out!

If you dont want to live in Luxomburg or Cuba conservatives better refocus NOW!

All conservatives in the media and all GOP Senators need to be asked come out strongly against the Individual Mandate provision now – this is the most onerous and unconstitutional part of this “Obamacare” scheme. The are the common thread that in all the various Obamacare and Obamacare lite plans. The force everyone in the country to participate involuntarily and under the government’s term and provide billions in tax revenues.

This is a very dangerous period because Nationalization will still occur even without an overt government run insurance plan like this "public option" provision everyone keeps fixating on – Wyden/Bennett and the Bacus bill are prime examples of this.

Here are the core elements what will be contained in the “health care reform compromise” after the so-called “public option” is in all likelihood dropped:

(a) Federal Regulation aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

(c) Government Subsidies aka MIDDLE CLASS MEDICAL WELFARE

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

The essential components that needs to be targeted now need to be focused on are the Individual and Employer Mandates. These Mandates are the glue that holds Obamacare together – without them the whole plan falls apart. These Mandates force everyone in the country into insurance plans that are designed by the Federal Government thus giving them control over everyone's choices. Mandates also fund the whole plan since they force young and healthy citizens to buy expensive policies that really don’t need and won’t likely use and employers to pay huge taxes. Finally, the Mandates are the stick that keeps the insurance industry on board with the scheme since they give them millions and millions of new customers – it is basically another big industry bailout (big Health Insurance companies are in great financial distress since they lost heavily in last year’s market collapse and have a disproportionate number of aging “babyboomer” customers who are getting older and sicker thus more costly – 80 million of their 135 million customers are between the ages of 50-65 years old).

Obamacare is a corrupt barging that benefits big government, powerful Washington politicians, big union, and big companies/industry at the expense (once again) of the taxpayer, small business, the elderly, and the young. All American should be opposed to this corruption!

Senators and Represenatives need to be forced to go on record as not only opposing the “government options” but these Employer/Individual Mandates too before they fall into the trap of thinking they are acceptable and not government run health care. Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a “free market” solution and “individual responsibility” but in this context they are not – they are simply a front for a government run system. Many can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was)!

Obamacare can survive the loss of a public option but it cant survive without individual mandates!

Posted by slobrainish

2009-09-25 00:26:57

I post on RWN because its easy and fun to fluster political ideologues who are more obsessed with attacking the opposition than they are in boosting their own positive aspects.

Posted by snohomish aka hoggo on 2009-09-16 14:54:29

Before you compose a reply to this well-known troll, consider what his personal mission here is, as stated in his own words above. As inferred from his own statement, he'll say anything to piss you off. Nothing is too outlandish, nothing is off-limits. He'll insult anything he thinks you hold dear, just to watch you fume and boil. He's here just to piss you off. And he thinks that pissing you off is great fun. Before you post anything in reply to this troll ask yourself a few questions:

Do I want hoggo setting the tone and topics of my discussions here?

Do I want hoggo exploiting my anger at him for his own perverse pleasure?

Do I want to feed more material to this persistent lying troll?

Do I care what hoggo thinks, says or does?

If the answer to any of those questions is "no", and very likely they will all be "no's", then you know what you should do – just walk away and say "No response to hoggo from me today."