House passes health care reform bill

[Destructionator XV]

Except it's never been used to calculate 'value to consumers', you pathetic nimrod. Now you're just blatantly making shit up.

Did you actually read my post? This is the exact language used in the bill where it states how the definition for medical loss ratio will be defined.

Such methodology shall be designed
and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate
participation by health insurance issuers, competition in
the health insurance market, and value for consumers so
that their premiums are used for services.

Of course, you have to, as otherwise, you'd have to admit that the Secretary for HHS isn't an elected politician, but someone picked by the President.

So what? The Secretary of the Treasury is an appointed position too, but that doesn't stop him from working for Goldman Sachs.

....Wow. You're amazingly stupid. Last I checked, Capitalism encourages obstufucation, monopolies, and only does studies on whether they get paid enough.

Irrelevant. The actual cost control mechanism in the bill is the end user picking his choice from competing private entities - you know, the textbook definition of free market competition, the thing Smith was talking about when he said invisible hand.

But I suppose 'Government Regulation' is now 'Invisible Hand' to you because the Government is entirely ruled by the Death Panels. Hell, they can't even get the Chamber Of Commerce in line, yet you want me to believe they magically own the Secretary of HHS?

The bill SPECIFICALLY SAYS their input is to be considered. It doesn't get much more clear than that.

'The express fact their premium increases will be heavily regulated MEANS NOTHING!'

Prove that they'll be heavily regulated by providing specific citations into the bill.

Yea, except if you make 150% FPL, in which case you slide into Medicaid and you're done, or 133% and you get a free ride. And still this pretends that regulation does nothing good.

150% of the Federal Poverty Level is:

$16,245 for one person
$21,855 for two
$33,750 a family of three

So if you are an individual making 17,000 - $8.50 / hour, full time - you miss out on Medicaid.

You aren't quite on your own yet. If you have no health insurance through your employer, or if your employer premium is over 12% of your income [page 249], AND you make less than 400% the FPL, you get those "affordability credits" which are valid only for purchasing basic plans through the Exchange [page 250].

The out of pocket limit for our 8.50 / hour guy is $500 on cost sharing and 3% on premiums. [page 252].

That's about $1,000 he'll have to pay every year; about $80 / month.

Doesn't sound like a lot of money, but it is when you're making that much on your own. And you don't have the option to take your luck and not pay it - you're forced to pay 6% out.


And if he is covered by his employer? Sorry, there's no help for you on the co-pays. Let's hope the greedy Wall Street bastards are feeling generous. Good luck.

Lieberman won't budge. It takes two. And it then has to get through the House one more time.. Where the most populace caucus demands the same.

The House already passed this gimped option - the Progressive caucus (excepting America's hero, Dennis Kucinich) has already rolled over and settled for this half assed shit.

But let's pretend Obama hates everything progress. I mean, it's not like he's put a date on repealing DADT

Yet he refuses to actually take steps beyond words.

, or signed the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill into effect,

Which was a rider on a 300 billion dollar war bill.

created a Stimulus on Progressive/Keyesnian ideas of economics,

Which was specifically gimped to court two Republican votes. This is exactly what I expect him to do he has been doing with this bill.

Let's pretend he's just like Bush.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are the merits of your position so weak that you can't actually defend the bill or the President with what they've actually done, so you resort to comparing him to George Bush?

It is a clear, objective fact that Barack Obama views bipartianship as being important. He did it during the election, he did it with the stimulus, and he has done it with the insurance care vote up until now - always taking opportunities to praise Olympia Snowe and Chuck Grassley, being sure that they sit in on the discusions, despite them simply not being needed.

There's no reason to expect him to suddenly change now.

Yea. Because losing in 1994 on healthcare meant it only took a few years to come back.

Better to take my chances in the current system than be practically forced into bankruptcy by this bill.

[SirNitram]

Wow. This is just a nest of stupid. 3% of the bill is not what Obama ordered.. A tiny fraction of the bill is lessened to court Republican votes.. ANd that's 'gimping' it. Matthew SHeppard doesn't count because it was on the defense appropriations? He's 'not taken any steps', when he called in his SecDef the evening after he first said 'If DADT gets repealed' and thus the next day it's 'When DADT gets repealed', there's big changes in federal jobs to extend protections for gay partners..

Instead, let's say black is white to every part of the bill I discuss, and decree 'LET'S TAKE OUR CHANCES!'.

Because there aren't millions and millions without insurance. Because there isn't a huge, sucking hole in the US budget from not acting. Because more than half of all bankruptcies aren't Healthcare Bill related, even with insurance.

You're a goddamn retard, assailing anything that isn't perfect and demanding nothing.

[Destructionator XV]

Instead, let's say black is white to every part of the bill I discuss, and decree 'LET'S TAKE OUR CHANCES!'.

You're not discussing parts of the bill. You're pulling shit out of your ass and ignoring my direct quotes from the actual legislation.

Provide some citations to back up your statements or concede.

Because there aren't millions and millions without insurance. Because there isn't a huge, sucking hole in the US budget from not acting.
Because more than half of all bankruptcies aren't Healthcare Bill related, even with insurance.

Provide evidence that this bill takes steps that will solve the problem.

You're a goddamn retard, assailing anything that isn't perfect and demanding nothing.

You haven't provided a single quote or citation from the bill. You haven't actually addressed any of my actual points, instead opting to throw out red herrings and pointless flames. Yes, I know the current situation sucks. Show that this bill will make the situation better.

If the bill does so much good, how fucking hard can it be for you to prove it?

[SirNitram]

Instead, let's say black is white to every part of the bill I discuss, and decree 'LET'S TAKE OUR CHANCES!'.

You're not discussing parts of the bill. You're pulling shit out of your ass and ignoring my direct quotes from the actual legislation.

Provide some citations to back up your statements or concede.

Yea. My brain about throttled itself at you proclaiming the DHHS would be from Goldman Sachs. I'm having some trouble with that much stupid at once. It's not like it's a Pro-Choice, pro-consumer individual whose named Sebelious.

Because there aren't millions and millions without insurance. Because there isn't a huge, sucking hole in the US budget from not acting.
Because more than half of all bankruptcies aren't Healthcare Bill related, even with insurance.

Provide evidence that this bill takes steps that will solve the problem.

Your own quotes!

'If you're elderly? Double it!' Superior to the current version, which is Three to five times.

Removing administration costs? You just stamp your feet on what would be perfect. Well golly jee williker, retard, no shit. But that's not what we can get through. Grow up.

Medical Loss Ratio requirements immediately followed by review and justification of premium increases.. In short, to return to normal hits against the DHHS Secretary. You whine it doesn't define what justification is. Think, you goddamn retard. You want those bought and paid for by the insurance companies to have a syllable in edgewise in that determination?

Your bit on the 150% guy is hilarious. I'm at 133% with my wife, and we would love to pay only 80 bucks a month for health insurance for her.

You keep revealing one thing in this: You've never been those of us at the bottom, who do have to deal with the real-world impacts of the status quo. And so you cheerlead the status quo over ANY change.

You're a goddamn retard, assailing anything that isn't perfect and demanding nothing.

You haven't provided a single quote or citation from the bill. You haven't actually addressed any of my actual points, instead opting to throw out red herrings and pointless flames. Yes, I know the current situation sucks. Show that this bill will make the situation better.

If the bill does so much good, how fucking hard can it be for you to prove it?

Hell, I just showed how. With your quotes and the fact it restores competition. DOn't like competition? Move to Africa; I hear the Diamond regions have stopped that practice rather brutally.

And let's cap this off with how easy it is to do stuff with this bill once it's through: Look at many amendments on a bill sometime. They replace wording in entirely unrelated bills, and those wordings can have alot of serious reprecussions. Once we have this bill, everyone from Sanders to Kuicinich, who you clearly approve of somehow, can slip an amendment onto must-pass bills to improve it.

But no. Your position is let's wait another 15 years. Let's not do the mild improvement.

Here's my reasons why:

45,000 deaths from lack of health insurance per year.

[frigidmagi]

Adam I swear to God if you say concession accepted or something like that I am going ape on you.

I fucking hate that. Argue all you want with Nitram, but unless he actually concedes don't announce an acceptance.

[Destructionator XV]

Yea. My brain about throttled itself at you proclaiming the DHHS would be from Goldman Sachs.

You don't even know how to read, do you? That was an example showing that appointed officials aren't beyond private influence, not a literal statement that she'll be working specifically for Goldman.

'If you're elderly? Double it!' Superior to the current version, which is Three to five times.

Yeah, that is an improvement. (not sarcastic)

You just stamp your feet on what would be perfect. Well golly jee williker, retard, no shit. But that's not what we can get through. Grow up.

First off, saying "we'll never have that, so don't bother fighting for it" is self-fulfilling. We won't get change if everyone keeps this asinine attitude.

Secondly, just because perfection isn't going to happen isn't a reason to settle for something that doesn't actually fix the problem at all. Passing any bill might make Barack Obama look good, but I don't give a shit about him looking good. I only care about what helps the American people.

Medical Loss Ratio requirements immediately followed by review and justification of premium increases..

Liar. This simply isn't true. The medical loss ratio stuff is multiple sections before the premium increase language.

Bolding is mine, showing where the relevant points are.

27
1 ``SEC. 2714. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
2 ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Each health insurance issuer
3 that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large
4 group market shall provide that for any plan year in which
5 the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified
6 by the Secretary (but not less than 85 percent), the issuer
7 shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for
8 rebates to enrollees of the amount by which the issuer's
9 medical loss ratio is less than the level so specified.
10 ``(b) IMPLEMENTATION.--The Secretary shall estab-
11 lish a uniform definition of medical loss ratio and method-
12 ology for determining how to calculate it based on the av-
13 erage medical loss ratio in a health insurance issuer's book
14 of business for the small and large group market. Such
15 methodology shall be designed to take into account the
16 special circumstances of smaller plans, different types of
17 plans, and newer plans. In determining the medical loss
18 ratio, the Secretary shall exclude State taxes and licensing
19 or regulatory fees. Such methodology shall be designed
20 and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate
21 participation by health insurance issuers, competition in
22 the health insurance market, and value for consumers so
23 that their premiums are used for services.
24 ``(c) SUNSET.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not
25 apply to health insurance coverage on and after the first
28
1 date that health insurance coverage is offered through the
2 Health Insurance Exchange.''.
3 (b) INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.--
4 Such title is further amended by inserting after section
5 2753 the following new section:
6 ``SEC. 2754. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
7 ``The provisions of section 2714 shall apply to health
8 insurance coverage offered in the individual market in the
9 same manner as such provisions apply to health insurance
10 coverage offered in the small or large group market except
11 to the extent the Secretary determines that the application
12 of such section may destabilize the existing individual
13 market.''.
14 (c) IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION.--The amend-
15 ments made by this section shall apply in the group and
16 individual market for plan years beginning on or after
17 January 1, 2010, or as soon as practicable after such date.
18 SEC. 103. ENDING HEALTH INSURANCE RESCISSION ABUSE.
19 (a) CLARIFICATION REGARDING APPLICATION OF
20 GUARANTEED RENEWABILITY INDIVIDUAL
OF AND
21 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.--Sections 2712
22 and 2742 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
23 300gg­12, 300gg­42) are each amended--
24 (1) in its heading, by inserting ``AND CON-
25 TINUATION IN FORCE, INCLUDING PROHIBI-
29
1 after ``GUARANTEED
TION OF RESCISSION,'' RE-
2 and
NEWABILITY'';
3 (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, including
4 without rescission,'' after ``continue in force''.
5 (b) SECRETARIAL GUIDANCE REGARDING RESCIS-
6 SIONS.--
7 (1) GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET.--Sec-
8 tion 2712 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg­12) is
9 amended by adding at the end the following:
10 ``(f) RESCISSION.--A health insurance issuer may re-
11 scind group health insurance coverage only upon clear and
12 convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection
13 (b)(2), under procedures that provide for independent, ex-
14 ternal third-party review.''.
15 (2) INDIVIDUAL HEALTH MARKET.--Section
16 2742 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg­42) is amended
17 by adding at the end the following:
18 ``(f) RESCISSION.--A health insurance issuer may re-
19 scind individual health insurance coverage only upon clear
20 and convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection
21 (b)(2), under procedures that provide for independent, ex-
22 ternal third-party review.''.
23 (3) GUIDANCE.--The Secretary of Health and
24 Human Services, no later than 90 days after the
25 date of the enactment of this Act, shall issue guid-
30
1 ance implementing the amendments made by para-
2 graphs (1) and (2), including procedures for inde-
3 pendent, external third-party review.
4 (c) OPPORTUNITY INDEPENDENT, EXTERNAL
FOR
5 THIRD-PARTY REVIEW IN CERTAIN CASES.--
6 (1) INDIVIDUAL 1 of part B
MARKET.--Subpart
7 of title XXVII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg­41 et
8 seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
9 ``SEC. 2746. OPPORTUNITY FOR INDEPENDENT, EXTERNAL
10 THIRD-PARTY REVIEW IN CASES OF RESCIS-
11 SION.
12 ``(a) NOTICE REVIEW RIGHT.--If a health in-
AND
13 surance issuer determines to rescind health insurance cov-
14 erage for an individual in the individual market, before
15 such rescission may take effect the issuer shall provide the
16 individual with notice of such proposed rescission and an
17 opportunity for a review of such determination by an inde-
18 pendent, external third-party under procedures specified
19 by the Secretary under section 2742(f).
20 ``(b) INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION.--If the indi-
21 vidual requests such review by an independent, external
22 third-party of a rescission of health insurance coverage,
23 the coverage shall remain in effect until such third party
24 determines that the coverage may be rescinded under the
25 guidance issued by the Secretary under section 2742(f).''.
31
1 (2) APPLICATION TO GROUP HEALTH INSUR-
2 title is further amended by adding
ANCE.--Such
3 after section 2702 the following new section:
4 ``SEC. 2703. OPPORTUNITY FOR INDEPENDENT, EXTERNAL
5 THIRD-PARTY REVIEW IN CASES OF RESCIS-
6 SION.
7 ``The provisions of section 2746 shall apply to group
8 health insurance coverage in the same manner as such
9 provisions apply to individual health insurance coverage,
10 except that any reference to section 2742(f) is deemed a
11 reference to section 2712(f).''.
12 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by
13 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
14 of this Act and shall apply to rescissions occurring on and
15 after July 1, 2010, with respect to health insurance cov-
16 erage issued before, on, or after such date.
17 SEC. 104. SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING BY HEALTH IN-
18 SURANCE ISSUERS.
19 The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in con-
20 junction with States, shall establish a process for the an-
21 nual review of increases in premiums for health insurance
22 coverage. Such process shall require health insurance
23 issuers to submit a justification for any premium increases
24 prior to implementation of the increase.

The text speaks for itself for those of us smart and honest enough to actually read what it says.

Your bit on the 150% guy is hilarious. I'm at 133% with my wife, and we would love to pay only 80 bucks a month for health insurance for her.

If you are getting it through your employer, the bill doesn't help much. The subsidies, which make the number that low for the 150% guy, don't apply to employer plans unless the premium is over 12% of your income [page 249] - you'd be looking at paying $200 / month or so.

There is no guarantee in the bill that even at 133%, you'll qualify for Medicaid if you have coverage offered through your employer. You may still be uneligible for it, despite being under the line in Federal law. It depends on how the state law dishes it out.

In other words, the bill is still pretty damn close to the status quo for most people. Which President Obama touts as a feature!

You keep revealing one thing in this: You've never been those of us at the bottom, who do have to deal with the real-world impacts of the status quo.

Whatever you say, buddy.

And so you cheerlead the status quo over ANY change.

Nope, I've never argued for reform of any kind. I most certainly haven't done so even in this very thread.

Fuck, I even outlined my compromise position in this thread! (in the post where I included the Joe Wilson image)


But where we differ is I'm not willing to settle for a net loss just to say YAY I PASSED SOMETHING! I'm going to fight to the bitter end to make the situation better for this great nation and its people, and if that means some bad bills have to die in the mean time, so be it.

Hell, I just showed how. With your quotes and the fact it restores competition. DOn't like competition? Move to Africa; I hear the Diamond regions have stopped that practice rather brutally.

My God, you're a low creature. Are you so intellectually dishonest that you'll do anything to back up your preconveived notions, or are you just so god damned stupid that you don't realize that the vast majority of industrialized countries don't depend on competition, and manage to do BETTER than we are now, and BETTER than this bill is projected to do?


That's what annoys me most about the President's speeches. He talks about choice and competition like they are the end result; like they are goals in and of themselves.

They aren't. They are just a means to an end - a means that the evidence from other countries show aren't very effective.

I don't want choice. I want quality, affordable coverage that doesn't discriminate against people. I don't care about competition. I care about helping people.

If choice and competition manage to pull it off, great. But they aren't the only way, nor even necessarily a good way to do it. (Especially without a strong public option that people can jump ship to at any time.)

But no. Your position is let's wait another 15 years. Let's not do the mild improvement.

No, my position is to not make the situation worse with a bad bill while we keep up the fight to do it right.

Here's my reasons why:

45,000 deaths from lack of health insurance per year.

Once again, just because the current situation is bad is no excuse to rush into passing a bad bill that won't do much help.

[SirNitram]

You just stamp your feet on what would be perfect. Well golly jee williker, retard, no shit. But that's not what we can get through. Grow up.

First off, saying "we'll never have that, so don't bother fighting for it" is self-fulfilling. We won't get change if everyone keeps this asinine attitude.

It's as if you're TRYING to prove me right that you know nothing about this.

Weiner Amendment died. Sander's amendment is still waiting in the Senate. Those aren't, by the by, Medicare. This is true Single-Payer. I didn't say, 'let's not even try'. I donated to those trying. But I'm not a goddamn moron. I know they probably won't pass. If there was one at the end, a conference miracle, I'd happily admit I'm wrong. But I'm not fighting the battle over again when those amendments can be applied again, as soon as we have this bill out and we find a must-pass.

Secondly, just because perfection isn't going to happen isn't a reason to settle for something that doesn't actually fix the problem at all. Passing any bill might make Barack Obama look good, but I don't give a shit about him looking good. I only care about what helps the American people.

Again, you've not shown it won't fix the problem. I've shown a number of ways it will flatly improve the situation. It's incremental, but big fucking surprise. You don't overturn an industry of this size this quickly.

Medical Loss Ratio requirements immediately followed by review and justification of premium increases..

Liar. This simply isn't true. The medical loss ratio stuff is multiple sections before the premium increase language.

The text speaks for itself for those of us smart and honest enough to actually read what it says.

Meanwhile, those smart enough to follow a thread of argument and not eager to scream 'LIAR', would realize I meant temporally... After the Loss Ratio ends, we're already in the 'Must justify every premium increase' time period..

Your bit on the 150% guy is hilarious. I'm at 133% with my wife, and we would love to pay only 80 bucks a month for health insurance for her.

If you are getting it through your employer, the bill doesn't help much. The subsidies, which make the number that low for the 150% guy, don't apply to employer plans unless the premium is over 12% of your income [page 249] - you'd be looking at paying $200 / month or so.

No. It doesn't. It was never designed to. It's not meant to completely rewrite group policies, because those are already heavily regulated through HIPAA.

There is no guarantee in the bill that even at 133%, you'll qualify for Medicaid if you have coverage offered through your employer. You may still be uneligible for it, despite being under the line in Federal law. It depends on how the state law dishes it out.

No guarantees there, no. 100% subsidy would be nice at 133% though.

In other words, the bill is still pretty damn close to the status quo for most people. Which President Obama touts as a feature!

Which is as he said from the start, you goddamn moron. He always said you could stay as you are. So now keeping campaign promises is.. Bad?

You keep revealing one thing in this: You've never been those of us at the bottom, who do have to deal with the real-world impacts of the status quo.

Whatever you say, buddy.

And so you cheerlead the status quo over ANY change.

Nope, I've never argued for reform of any kind. I most certainly haven't done so even in this very thread.

Fuck, I even outlined my compromise position in this thread! (in the post where I included the Joe Wilson image)


But where we differ is I'm not willing to settle for a net loss just to say YAY I PASSED SOMETHING! I'm going to fight to the bitter end to make the situation better for this great nation and its people, and if that means some bad bills have to die in the mean time, so be it.

Yes, yes. You say it's a net loss. When are you going to show where it's not a real increase from reality? Hell, the high risk pools you mention are an improvement: 125% is better than 125% to 150%.

Hell, I just showed how. With your quotes and the fact it restores competition. DOn't like competition? Move to Africa; I hear the Diamond regions have stopped that practice rather brutally.

My God, you're a low creature. Are you so intellectually dishonest that you'll do anything to back up your preconveived notions, or are you just so god damned stupid that you don't realize that the vast majority of industrialized countries don't depend on competition, and manage to do BETTER than we are now, and BETTER than this bill is projected to do?

What preconceived notions? Those numbers which show this is cheaper on stuff you bitch about the cost of, when compared to reality? You bitch about the restoration of competition and transparency. I honestly don't know what sort of logic-based argument you would accept, so yes, I insulted you for your damn ignorance.

That's what annoys me most about the President's speeches. He talks about choice and competition like they are the end result; like they are goals in and of themselves.

They aren't. They are just a means to an end - a means that the evidence from other countries show aren't very effective.

I don't want choice. I want quality, affordable coverage that doesn't discriminate against people. I don't care about competition. I care about helping people.

If choice and competition manage to pull it off, great. But they aren't the only way, nor even necessarily a good way to do it. (Especially without a strong public option that people can jump ship to at any time.)

That's nice. You are one person in a nation, and notably, you do not vote on this legislation. Those of us back in reality work with the real and the possible. We shove the possible forward as much as possible(An intellectually honest man would observe the change in national tone and negotiating positions from January and now, and how the Public Option is now a shoe-in, when even this weakened form was once incomprehensible, and two single-payer amendments are on the table.).

But no. Your position is let's wait another 15 years. Let's not do the mild improvement.

No, my position is to not make the situation worse with a bad bill while we keep up the fight to do it right.

Liar.

Yea. Because losing in 1994 on healthcare meant it only took a few years to come back.

Better to take my chances in the current system than be practically forced into bankruptcy by this bill.

Your position was clearly stated.

Here's my reasons why:

45,000 deaths from lack of health insurance per year.

Once again, just because the current situation is bad is no excuse to rush into passing a bad bill that won't do much help.

I, on the other hand, have empathy and thus regard even small improvements overall(Which this bill will accomplish) as something worth doing.

[Destructionator XV]

Those aren't, by the by, Medicare. This is true Single-Payer. I didn't say, 'let's not even try'.

You talk to me about knowing nothing, and then say this. FYI, Medicare for all is true single payer. Especially HR 676, which doesn't even have copays.

Again, you've not shown it won't fix the problem.

Surely you know by now how the burden of proof works?

Meanwhile, those smart enough to follow a thread of argument and not eager to scream 'LIAR', would realize I meant temporally... After the Loss Ratio ends, we're already in the 'Must justify every premium increase' time period..

Oh, I see. This of course brings us back to the position in the bill - a section on price gouging. We'll have to just wait and see what justifications they'll accept.

No. It doesn't. It was never designed to. It's not meant to completely rewrite group policies, because those are already heavily regulated through HIPAA.

That's idiotic. How can you call it sweeping reform when it isn't even meant to make a difference on 90% of policies?

Which is as he said from the start, you goddamn moron. He always said you could stay as you are.

Yes, indeed, though that's a lie too for some of us, thanks to the individual mandate. Anyway, him saying it from the start is the main reason why I didn't vote for him - it was a bad plan then, and it is a worse plan now.

So now keeping campaign promises is.. Bad?

When the promise is to do bad things, yes it is bad. If the promise is to do good things, then breaking it is bad.

Yes, yes. You say it's a net loss. When are you going to show where it's not a real increase from reality?

Two words: individual mandate. And to a lesser extent, the spending and the new bureaucracies.

Those are big minuses that need big justification.

And it just isn't there. Check this out: http://www.newamerica.net/blog/new-heal ... loss-15773

"While the health insurance industry says its average medical loss ratio is 87 percent, a new analysis released by the Senate suggests otherwise. "

Private insurers lie, film at 11. Can they keep up these lies when making the definition with the secretary? We'll see. Let's assume no and ask how much are they lying?

"Reed Abelson of the New York Times reports that in 2008, the for-profit average medical loss ratio was 84 percent in policies offered to large employers and 80 percent in policies offered to small businesses. In the individual market, there was an average medical loss ratio of 74 percent. Rockefeller specifically accuses CIGNA of breaking the law and inaccurately reporting information to the NAIC -- they had claimed a medical loss ratio of 93 percent."


This implies that the average medical loss ratio (the link points out how delicious this term is - the death panels open admit that paying for health care is a "loss") is ~79% today.


So 85%, if we use the same definition used now, best case scenario, is an improvement, but once again, a very slight one.

What this means is, if the bill passes, you might not see a premium hike in 2010 as they let inflation catch them up to the requirement, heck, you might even get a small reduction or a rebate... right in time for the midterm elections!

See people, Harry Reid fought the insurance companies, and won! You have to vote for him now!


Ah, but then in 2011, they'll have already crossed that little gap, and can now justify a rate hike to keep up with inflation. A smaller one than they gave us in 2009, no doubt, but still one nonetheless.

Then the insurance exchange goes online, and this provision no longer applies.


This "reform" gets better the more I look into it.

Hell, the high risk pools you mention are an improvement: 125% is better than 125% to 150%.

Not by much - they'll just have to jack up your rate by four dollars instead of five. And in exchange, we're now forced to buy into it.

What preconceived notions? Those numbers which show this is cheaper on stuff you bitch about the cost of, when compared to reality?

What numbers? This is what I'm talking about when I ask for citations. Scottie posted some CBO numbers a while back, which you dismissed in a vague one liner. Do you have your own numbers?

I honestly don't know what sort of logic-based argument you would accept,

I've been pretty consistent. I want objective citations; something beyond your word.

That's nice. You are one person in a nation, and notably, you do not vote on this legislation. Those of us back in reality work with the real and the possible.
We shove the possible forward as much as possible

This doesn't rebut my ethical goal. Focusing on moving a subgoal forward results in tunnel vision - you forget that the main purpose is to help people while you're focusing on choice, thus you miss out of other opportunities. This isn't a good thing.

(An intellectually honest man would observe the change in national tone and negotiating positions from January and now, and how the Public Option is now a shoe-in, when even this weakened form was once incomprehensible, and two single-payer amendments are on the table.).

Lol. Barack Obama promised a strong public option in his campaign, and was elected by a clear majority - how you see that as incomprehensible is beyond me. Since then, it has gone downhill, a low point in August, and is slowly climbing back up.

Net result though, we're in a weaker position than we were in January.

Liar.

Oh please. Care to provide a quote where I said "wait 15 years"? Can you bring up a single post that I've ever made, anywhere, where I've been against good health reform?

If this bill was good, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Better to take my chances in the current system than be practically forced into bankruptcy by this bill.

Your position was clearly stated.

Yeah, that the net result is this bill is worse than we have now. The same thing I just said above, and have been consistently saying the whole time.


For me, currently, I'm uninsured. If I'm lucky, I spend close to nothing on health care - my health budget for this year is about $200, doing regular checkups. I can afford that.

If the bill passes, I'll be forced to pay at least $1200 a year, after subsidies. That's a big strain on my budget.


If I'm unlucky and get sick or injured, right now, I'm bankrupt. If the bill passes, I'm still bankrupt if illness hits thanks to the reforms being too half assed to keep the co-pays within budget along with the budget strain of required premiums. Assuming it covers the procedure I end up needing at all. Which, I'll grant, the bill does increase the odds of in general, by requiring the basic provisions.

But, whether you're $5000 over your resources or $5000000 doesn't matter. In both cases, you've lost everything and are financially ruined for years afterward.

I, on the other hand, have empathy and thus regard even small improvements overall(Which this bill will accomplish) as something worth doing.

Appeal to emotion is a fallacy for a reason, you know.

[General Havoc]

Nitram, I have to admit, I share many of Destructionator's concerns on this bill, not to the degree that he does, but enough that I'd like some answers to the questions he's raised, and so far your responses have all consisted of screaming variations on the word "liar" over and over while you bang your head on the desk. Your opinion of his (or anybody's) intellectual honesty is of neither relevance to this argument nor interest to me, nor do these objections magically go away because you find it inconvenient that they should exist.

By what methods does this bill address the concerns that he has brought up? If it does not address them, then by what methods are these concerns either mitigated or rendered moot by gains elsewhere in the bill? Because I have to say, from where I'm sitting, this is a piss-poor piece of legislation that may potentially cause more harm than good. Like Destructionator, I am not eager to go bankrupt should I become ill (or for that matter, should I not become ill). Under the present situation, I am at risk of this occurring. Please explain to me by what methods the proposed legislation will reduce the risk of this occurring, or if it does not, then by what methods this legislation produces societal gains that outweigh my increased or unchanged risk of bankruptcy. I know that facts are hard to come by for a proposed bill, but to the extent that they are available, I am interested to know these things, as I worry right now that under the guise of "we must do something", congress is preparing to put through a bill that does all the wrong things.

[SirNitram]

You know, I would expect at least you to see my responses have been a hell of alot more than yelling liar with various prissy clothes over it. Partially because I don't truck with prissy clothes. Mostly because I have illustrated big changes that will improve matters. I'm not gonna claim it's a great bill, or perhaps even a good bill, but I've been down on the bottum long enough that I'm not choosy. I want a band-aid on it now, and I've yet to see one damn shred of proof this is a net decrease, as Destruct keeps insisting.