[...] sheer radical nature of so many of his appointments was truly eye-opening, wasn’t it? (See “Czar She Blows” earlier this [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Obama “Faith” Advisor Attacks Pope…

Obama “Faith” Advisor Attacks Pope *pictures at http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1905086499587707582&postID=6402850052934900546 Over the past year we’ve already seen ample evidence that Obama has indeed been……

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley:

May not be so “budget neutral” for the business, triz.

This is starting to remind me of the California fiscal crisis: a constituency that wants more entitlements, a lower deficit, and nobody to pay for it. How many business are solvent? The money, weather it’s for “group” expansion or for the public option, has to come from somewhere, and under HR2300 it’s hitting a staggering 5% of small businesses (see: NYTimes).

triz… again… federal and state laws prohibit denial of pre-existing for GROUP plans. Therefore create more GROUPS and there is less pre-existing denial.

This is my point, the only way to put these kind of people into “group” plans is to force insurance companies to cover them either through coercive legislation which gets in the way of innovation (and let’s be honest, isn’t going to pass the lobbying process), or through tax-breaks which are basically spending against the deficit and hoping that corporations decide to take the government pay-off rather than simply raising premiums to match. On the other hand, you can offer a public option which puts the emphasis on basic patient care rather than procedural cost and ends up succeeding in the same way as the Mayo Clinic and others have (which dove-tails with my initial lost comment here about corporate motivation). If the tax-breaks are going to have to match the extra care to be useful as well as account for additional profit, why not just go for a public option and skip the middle-man.

Again, I think a tier-based system which encourages preventative care is a good idea, I just think that the private insurance companies have had long enough to converge on good coverage and have failed; as for the government, just about every foreign national health-care plan offers comparable coverage at lower cost … I think that corporations are very good at profit-driven business, but insurance, particularly when you can tell that an individual will be a liability, is not a service that functions well under such a philosophy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

May not be so “budget neutral” for the business, triz. Especially since the legislation is demanding not only a “penalty” if the employer doesn’t provide the insurance, they are mandated to increase their employees salary for the amount it would take to provide insurance. How many small businesses do you think are solvent enough to take that hit without downsizing?

Look at it this way… it’s the government’s way of getting further into the businessman’s pockets. Could the employers be better coerced into providing group insurance by offering tax benefits instead of penalties? And would that not increase their financial health?

Now I’m not a betting man, but I’ll wager you and I both now that “group” expansion would not cover this kind of scenario … so at the very least, the government would ideally create some kind of SCHIP/Medicare-style plan to cover these individuals.

triz… again… federal and state laws prohibit denial of pre-existing for GROUP plans. Therefore create more GROUPS and there is less pre-existing denial. You think any new groups no longer fall under current laws?? Boyo, you’re exhausting. heh

I can see a reform where *private* insurance is more affordable when purchased in tiers, and combined with tax incentives for medical accounts. This would look something like:

Low tier: tax exempt medical accounts to cover basic visits and check ups/tests

Middle tier: group plans for non-catastrophic impermanant coverage… broken limbs, minor surgeries, and include things like diabetes supplies that aren’t crippling, but require long term meds and supplies, etc

High tier: catastrophic and debilitating diseases of permanent nature

But why is it you believe the *government* has to create this insurance, and not the private sector? Have you now bought into Obama’land that only the government can do anything?

And oh, BTW, I do believe that somewhere up there you were still under the misconceived notion that admin costs for medicare were lower than for private. We’ve gone thru this battle before, and even the AMA studies say that the medicare admin numbers are higher, masked by a cheat and a lie of number crunching since they do not include all the departments that are involved in administering medicare, and that private companies must include their advertising as part of their admin costs. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley:

Moving the goal posts now, eh triz? LOL

I just took it for granted that the average person with a debilitating disease would not be able to get the kind of work that had insurance; I don’t think that’s a leap but I’m glad we’re on the same page now regardless. Now I’m not a betting man, but I’ll wager you and I both now that “group” expansion would not cover this kind of scenario … so at the very least, the government would ideally create some kind of SCHIP/Medicare-style plan to cover these individuals. If it were up to me, we’d have something much closer to universal health-care so then everyone can stop complaining about rationing . The public option is a step in the right direction which intends to make health insurance for at-risk groups more affordable through at least subsidies and at best the kind of reduction in overhead costs I talk about in a comment that’s still stuck in spam. The GOP alternative offers nothing for these people and (I’m guessing) more deficit spending through tax-breaks.

BTW, an added fiscal business destroyer is HR 3200 is mandating *all* employers MUST provide insurance or they too are penalized

Sounds to me like a budget-neutral way to expand those “groups” you’re talking about.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Moving the goal posts now, eh triz? LOL

First of all, insurance is not free with the public option. Anyone… whether unemployed, or employed by someone who doesn’t provide group options… is going to have to pay or suffer penalties annually when filing their income tax. So right now, someone who can’t afford insurance is ahead of the game because by the time Obama gets thru with them, it’s buy insurance or pay the government for not having insurance. Nice, eh? That’ll make it easier on ‘em.

Or are you under the assumption everyone who isn’t working is going to get this for free?

So my question to you is, why do you ask about the unemployed or employed without a group option? I repeat, the choices Obama and Congress are giving the US citizen is PAY for a policy thru the public option, or PAY for the policy thru an employer (or have as employment benefits) or PAY for private insurance. The only promises for PAYING is that they say the public option will be cheaper. (because they will put the “in the red” costs onto the taxpayer)

Hell… forget the public option. If you’re going to mandate insurance, why not do real reform, lower the costs, form groups and at least make the private option more affordable. The public option is nothing but an expensive red herring to the real mandate…. buy insurance or pay the government. It is the public option that will be the taxpayer drain… not the private option.

BTW, an added fiscal business destroyer is HR 3200 is mandating *all* employers MUST provide insurance or they too are penalized… That’ll be a real help in this economy.

Boondoggle… figuring it out yet?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley: I read your links, and you’re right that a person with a debilitating disease would be covered under a group plan (primarily due to the look back period, not the exclusion period); but I’m asking you specifically about individuals with debilitating diseases that are either unemployed or do not have insurance from their employer. What “groups” would you expand to cover them and how would you do this without cost to the tax-payer?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

triz: And under your scenario, what “group” would cover the adult with Down’s or any number of debilitating diseases which you claim are mostly imaginary

Triz, if you do not read the links I provide that point out group insurance cannot deny coverage via both federal and state laws for more than 12 months, I don’t know how to deal with you. You are simply making up hypotheticals in order to fear monger, or pass along the fear mongering you are digesting from the O’healthcare lying advocates.

And I did not say debilitating diseases were imaginary. I said that your belief that group plans can deny pre-existing coverage for more than a limited exempt period was prohibited by both federal and many state statutes. Do try to read more carefully.

I can only say this… read the damn links.

Mata: NO ONE ever spoke of discontinuing Medicare.

triz: You and I both know that’s not true – there’s nothing fundamentally different between Medicare and a public option which covers other at-risk groups under 65. Certainly they are both equally socialist (whatever that means in terms of insurance), and an argument against the public option is really a broader argument against Medicare.

Show me anywhere in any suggested reform… either the Dems debacle, or the GOP suggestions for cost reform… that says they are doing away with Medicare.

What the O’healthcare is all about is creating a new, secondary Medicare for those *under* 65. Again, you are fear mongering, and making crap up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley:

I am *dealing* with the situation by suggesting the the GOP suggestion of creating more “groups” will eliminate the need for “individual” insurance, thereby alleviating the pre-existing condition problem.

And under your scenario, what “group” would cover the adult with Down‘s or any number of debilitating diseases which you claim are mostly imaginary (*snark*)? And how are you going to do that without forcing insurance companies to cut into their profits and cater to these at-risk groups, stymieing innovation and all of that? I have an idea, let’s have a default “group” for all citizens which provides them with basic preventative care…

The reason I single out Down’s is not to monger fear, but to point a situation which is indicative of many others where individuals are not in a group and cannot afford private insurance through no real fault of their own.

NO ONE ever spoke of discontinuing Medicare.

You and I both know that’s not true – there’s nothing fundamentally different between Medicare and a public option which covers other at-risk groups under 65. Certainly they are both equally socialist (whatever that means in terms of insurance), and an argument against the public option is really a broader argument against Medicare. At least I think we’ve come to a consensus that there are some groups which private insurance has no monetary interest in covering and for which government has to step in.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata: Again, you are talking about caveats that simply do not exist.

triz: If that’s the case, why do avoid dealing with that situation? On most group plans your children are no longer covered once they reach their mid-20’s; likewise DS is generally considered a pre-existing condition which makes it extremely difficult to get affordable non-group insurance, so who covers the DS child?

Triz, I am not avoiding the situation. I am telling you your fear mongering doesn’t exist in but a few situations… i.e. individual insured v group insured. I am *dealing* with the situation by suggesting the the GOP suggestion of creating more “groups” will eliminate the need for “individual” insurance, thereby alleviating the pre-existing condition problem.

When a “child” reaches 20, they get insured on their own because… unless they are a dependent and still covered as such, they are no longer “children” but supposed to become responsible young adults.

Mata: What does parental status have to do with MANDATED Medicare enrollment at the age of 65?

triz: Maybe I was unclear here, my point was that without socialist Medicare, an elderly person (with no children to support them) would have a very difficult time getting non-group insurance as well. Banning or severely charging at-risk groups is simple free-market policy on the part of insurance companies … how do you plan on covering these groups without a public option or extreme regulation?

Again you race off on tangents that are not even part of the debate, triz. NO ONE ever spoke of discontinuing Medicare. What should be under consideration is making Medicare less a national financial flush down the toilet.

Considering that the baby boomers, including myself, racing towards Medicare have had our paychecks drained annually for Medicare coverage for decades, we’d all be demanding our money back if the rug was pulled out with no choice.

However, if an over 65 person that was somewhat well to do wanted to get private insurance and opt out, saving the Medicare system drain, they should be allowed to do so with another “group” creation. What part about creating “groups” to replace “individual” aren’t you computing?? It’s a GOP suggestion (which is why you probably haven’t heard of it…) that has serious validity, and costs the tax payer nada.

So what’s the problem, other than you creating hypotheticals that are mostly imaginary with genuine reform revisited?

Like or Dislike: 0  0