a sobering looking into the current HCR bill

[Centexfarmer]

not from righties btw

when you finish the 1st one go to the 2nd one and hear another view which isnt happy news either

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/watch3.html

The premise of that discussion begins upon this statement:

MARCIA ANGELL: I would rather see Obama go down fighting for something coherent and practical that the public could mobilize behind, than go down fighting for this amorphous plan that tries to keep the private insurance industry in place.

I love Bill Moyers!

As a Texan he's to Journalism what Willie Nelson is to music!

He presented that comment as THE defacto premise (as many of us were taught to do in debate) to either support or defend that premise.

Obama got called on his shit, IMO.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03052010/watch.html

let's discuss what is said

if i had to choose i would go the way of the 2nd holding my nose

I appreciate Bill Moyers because he allows discussion beyond the "He said, she said, and I know you are what am I?"

He presents the facts presented from the horses mouth, and allows us to decide based upon what's been presented by the party's involved.

Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans to pass the legislation that we've elected to do to represent us are have done shit to address the issues presented.

I appreciate that there's at least one "journalist" to keep us on point in the Health Care debate.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I agree, but I also agree with the former VP of Cigna, Potter when he states that something is better than nothing.

At least that way a foundation will have been laid for something to build upon.

I think insurance rates are going to go up whatever we do.

Having a mandate without a public option seems like they most certainly will.

I got a raise at my job for the first time in almost two years, and it's a good thing that I did, because my insurance premiums ate every last penny of it.

Who's my employer provided insurance provider? Blue Cross.

The want, and from I gather will get that 39% increase that they're looking for.

I just wish that I got a 39% increase in my own salary.

I'm sorry if I'm kind of all over the place in responding here, in the short term it honestly looks like that the only people who are going to be covered is the Health Insurance Industry.

 

[Centexfarmer]

That's one of the things that always enjoy about Bill Moyers. He has a way of turning the volume way down so that we can hear what's happening in our country.

I feel pretty confident that he accurately illustrated where we are within the HCR debate, and it is very sobering.

 

[Centexfarmer]

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?" - AIW

i think we are in AIW





go back & watch the 1st video in OP (MARCIA ANGELL)

And where's the politics in that?

If the HCR is enacted, and THEN the Health Insurance Companies start off with their massive rate increases, while sucking off the Government teat with subsidies, is there still any political leverage to vilify the Health Insurance Insurance Companies for sharing that new wealth with their executives, and stockholders?

It's going to look like another "corporate give-away" at the tax-payers expense.

We're so fucked.

 

[chuck10x]

mr farmer,

we (avg joe blow) are being played for fools

obama & friends are telling us the health insurers are the problem with their greed for profits yet the health insurers are the ones who will gain the most (profit) if the senate bill is passed into law

you know, i referenced alice in wonderland but the health insurers are doing a good job of playing brer' rabbit

"Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

Obama and friends are dangling the carrot, and calling it Health care for all.
The Insurance Companies are the stick That bashes your head in when you bite.
The Insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions, But NO one says how much extra you would have to pay for those conditions.
Think of it as car insurance, No claims-Lower cost, 5 accidents- Much higher Cost.

 

[Centexfarmer]

mr farmer,

we (avg joe blow) are being played for fools

obama & friends are telling us the health insurers are the problem with their greed for profits yet the health insurers are the ones who will gain the most (profit) if the senate bill is passed into law

you know, i referenced alice in wonderland but the health insurers are doing a good job of playing brer' rabbit

"Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

Why so formal? Centex is fine.

Obama and friends are dangling the carrot, and calling it Health care for all.
The Insurance Companies are the stick That bashes your head in when you bite.
The Insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions, But NO one says how much extra you would have to pay for those conditions.
Think of it as car insurance, No claims-Lower cost, 5 accidents- Much higher Cost.

And I though that the two of you were being cynical.

If there's one thing that I got from watching these interviews is that real HCR is non-existent.

If our elected representatives in Washington actually represented Joe Q. Public, instead of being lifelong politicians with their own built in health-care plans, and reassurances for their reelections by the "corporations" who actually take care of them, if they were seriously taking care of their constituency, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Instead this sobering look into our current HCR bill just gives us a glimpse of how screwed we all are, regardless of where or how we fall in this debate.

The only two groups of Americans right off the bat who are going to benefit or the politicians, and the Health Insurance Companies.

 

[Kulindahr]

The only way this bill should go is to jettison the 'mandate' and just let it be a bill correcting egregious fouls in the system.

Then take it up next year, and do actual reform, things like:

• incentives for starting fraternal benefit companies which would provide insurance on a not-for-profit basis
• incentives for starting immediate care clinics to take the load off the emergency rooms and reduce costs
• incentives for starting new medical schools to increase the supply of doctors
• make the cost of an annual physical a refundable tax credit

 

[hotatlboi]

Well the unfortunate truth is that any plan which does not "keep the private insurance industry in place" has no chance in hell of passing.

 

[JB3]

Well the unfortunate truth is that any plan which does not "keep the private insurance industry in place" has no chance in hell of passing.

Nor should it. The government should not be in the business of forcing an entire class of industry out of business. I don't care what your opinion of health care is; the minute the government goes that far is the minute that you should be afraid of what they'll do next.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Nor should it. The government should not be in the business of forcing an entire class of industry out of business. I don't care what your opinion of health care is; the minute the government goes that far is the minute that you should be afraid of what they'll do next.

Oh yeah, and the free unregulated markets have worked just fine, and have served the American Public SO WELL!

Remember as Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying:

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

In a Democratic Republic that we live in, our "elected representatives" are REQUIRED under their Constitutional Oath of Office, to protect us from those who "it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others."

Not to advocate for it!

But then again...this is where we separate ourselves between Jefferson and Madison, the North and the South, Conservatives and Liberals, States Rights and Federalists isn't it?

 

[chuck10x]

I think everyone, For and Against can agree on one thing.
The Insurance companies are going to reap HUGE profits if the bill passes.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I think everyone, For and Against can agree on one thing.
The Insurance companies are going to reap HUGE profits if the bill passes.

Yep! Pretty much.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

The only way this bill should go is to jettison the 'mandate'

They won't do that because that's what the whole thing is about. The entire bill will go down before the mandate will. They've made all sorts of excuses for the mandate but the truth is simply it's the crown jewel of the entire thing. It's what they really wanted out of the bill.

 

[Kulindahr]

They won't do that because that's what the whole thing is about. The entire bill will go down before the mandate will. They've made all sorts of excuses for the mandate but the truth is simply it's the crown jewel of the entire thing. It's what they really wanted out of the bill.

Which means that the point of the exercise is to enrich the coffers of companies who back them. "We, the People" are just a tool to that end.

 

[construct]

Yes, there is a politics vs. policy difference, but there is another difference which maybe has been missed. Mr. Potter says that the oversight which the bill requires would restrain the rate of increase in premiums and shift some of the remaining burden to the federal government.

Dr. Angell sees nothing in the bill to restrain increasing premiums in the least. Further, she sees nothing good in the private insurance industry.

Which is right? They can't both be. They agree that premiums will go up, but how much and how fast. Dr. Angell says that skyrocketing premiums would force a true insurance reform bill faster and more effectively. I really don't believe that. I really believe that if this bill fails, that failure would sap the political will of the American people to the extent that we wouldn't see another attempt at this for another sixteen years.

I choose Mr. Potter's option. I don't like it. I wanted Medicare-for-all during the campaign, but the bill that is likely to emerge is better than nothing in my opinion.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

for now since we cant get it all

There is no for now. They intend to use this legislation to force their way into every aspect of your life. This is not being done for your benefit. They're not giving us anything. They're taking away our right to choose.

 

[NickCole]

They won't do that because that's what the whole thing is about. The entire bill will go down before the mandate will. They've made all sorts of excuses for the mandate but the truth is simply it's the crown jewel of the entire thing. It's what they really wanted out of the bill.

Yes, and the history of the mandate is very revealing about where we are and where we could have been.

Hillary had mandated coverage in her 2008 campaign health care plan to cover the cost of providing better health care to the vulnerable and to placate private insurance and pharma in exchange for the public option. The public option was essential, that was the part that was for us. It was tit for tat. Through mandated coverage we'll deliver 30 million new customers to you, some with pre-existing illness (more profits for pharma) and many that are young and healthy (more profits for private insurance) -- but we'll get something in return. We'll get a public option for care coverage and to negotiate drug prices in tandem with reimportation -- this was key to real health care reform. That's what would reign in costs for us while the insurance and pharma industry got more customers. Hillary's plan was brilliant: what insurance and pharma lost in profits because of drug and insurance pricing competition through the public option and reimportation, those industries could regain by volume - lowered costs for us, individually, without cutting profits for insurance and pharma. Genius. Win-Win.

During the campaign Obama supported a public option and opposed mandated coverage, said that's what distinguished his plan from Hillary's and his fans cheered. For those of us looking at policy rather than personality, that was a big tip-off about Obama.

Then President Obama made the mandate the centerpiece of health care reform and jettisoned the public option.

And Obama loyalists still haven't figured out what's happening. Watch his appearances this week, they're still cheering while he's selling them out.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Since projections of what that health coverage bit will do show an added annual expense of $4k+ for college students, increasing aid would seem to be in order.

The problem is that we lack money for any of this. He should be slashing the budget, shutting down departments such as Energy and auctioning the pieces, closing things like Education which suck up money and don't accomplish anything -- besides which, neither of those is authorized in the Constitution.

 

[Kulindahr]

IMO, the main reason for the student-aid addon to the HCR is just another 100% govt take-over of yet another sector of banking

How is it "100%"?

 

[Kulindahr]

kul,

my understanding of Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) is it will transfer billions of dollars away from banking to govt departments as to to whom a student applies with

many jobs will be eliminated from the pvt sector and will make govt even bigger

i'm sure many will think this is good

And our taxes will be higher, and our debt bigger, and there our those who will think these are good, too.

Make the individual exemption $35,000 and I might begin to entertain a notion that there's a possibility they just might have a potential point.