Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lu Powell wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote: A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other. The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required. And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date. Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered. If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care, and that on a good day. Why is it that so few can think this through? Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance- oxymoron Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg? Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health care. “What’s important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said today on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The public option itself “is not the essential element.” Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with government funds. Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be considering backing off its commitment to create a government-run health insurance system to operate alongside private insurers in order to get health legislation passed. “There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there never have been,” North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead Democratic negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,” he said. “President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,” said Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The American people “don’t want a government- run program,” Shelby said. Shelby also said that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be government involvement” would be “a step in the right direction.” The "party line," of course, is that the Republicans want to kill any possibilities of a "public option," because that's what their owners in the health insurance industry have told them to do. Easy, Lu-ser. Even for someone as dumb as you are. BTW, you're not enrolled in a publicly funded health care program, are you? Just wondering, because most of "conservative" opponents here are. |
#12
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote: A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other. The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required. And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date. Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered. If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care, and that on a good day. Why is it that so few can think this through? Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance- oxymoron Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg? Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isnt essential to the Obama administrations proposed overhaul of U.S. health care. Whats important is choice and competition, Sebelius said today on CNNs State of the Union. The public option itself is not the essential element. Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she didnt know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with government funds. Sebelius comments suggest that the Obama administration may be considering backing off its commitment to create a government-run health insurance system to operate alongside private insurers in order to get health legislation passed. There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there never have been, North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead Democratic negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said on Fox News Sunday. To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort, he said. President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves, said Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The American people dont want a government- run program, Shelby said. Shelby also said that the creation of co-ops, while that would be government involvement would be a step in the right direction. Apparently these 'ultra-compassionates' aren't even reading there own linked articles carefully. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#13
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
H the K wrote:
Lu Powell wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote: A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other. The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required. And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date. Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered. If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care, and that on a good day. Why is it that so few can think this through? Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance- oxymoron Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg? Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health care. “What’s important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said today on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The public option itself “is not the essential element.” Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with government funds. Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be considering backing off its commitment to create a government-run health insurance system to operate alongside private insurers in order to get health legislation passed. “There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there never have been,” North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead Democratic negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,” he said. “President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,” said Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The American people “don’t want a government- run program,” Shelby said. Shelby also said that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be government involvement” would be “a step in the right direction.” The "party line," of course, is that the Republicans want to kill any possibilities of a "public option," because that's what their owners in the health insurance industry have told them to do. It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to patient centered health care. Easy, Lu-ser. Even for someone as dumb as you are. BTW, you're not enrolled in a publicly funded health care program, are you? Just wondering, because most of "conservative" opponents here are. Everyone aged 65 and over is compelled by the full force of the US government to "participate" in a government run health care program whether they choose to participate or not. Nice try anyway. |
#14
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:
Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health- insurance- oxymoron http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269 The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates, among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else. It's inhumane. I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges, used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions, subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It ain't a competitive market. |
#15
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:
Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg? I don't know what the party line is, but, IMO, Obama better start playing hardball or his Presidency is going to become a wasted one. His bi- partisan efforts have failed. The Republicans aren't playing. It's time for him to control his party, and start ramming legislation down the Party of No's throat. To allow a small minority to control this debate is a major mistake. |
#16
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
BAR wrote:
It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to patient centered health care. Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment. It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it. I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything necessary at once. |
#17
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote: Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health- insurance- oxymoron http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269 The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates, among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else. It's inhumane. I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges, used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions, subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It ain't a competitive market. in fact, the only real competition is in the federally managed FEHBA program, where hundreds of insurance companies compete for the health care dollars of federal workers, who can pick the health care plans they want. Not true in the private sector. If you get health insurance through your employer, you have no or very little choice. Your employer makes the decision. There is no marketplace for health insurance consumers. |
#18
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote: It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to patient centered health care. Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment. It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it. I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything necessary at once. Snerk |
#20
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
~~ snerk ~~ | General | |||
Snerk | General | |||
~~ snerk ~~ | General | |||
SNERK | General | |||
~~snerk~~ | General |