Good Morning America, how are you ...

[Chaser001]

I guess this thread is finally ending now.  I'd just like to say that these have been the most interesting and well-informed comments on politics that I have ever seen on the Internet.  It reminds me of a time when I actually enjoyed the topic, a time long ago when I would listen to people talk about politics without resorting to partisan diatribes. 

[Pilgrim]

Since the thread hasn't ended.....

Something that I'm still deciding how I feel about is this...and I'm going to paint the picture in rather broad strokes....

A) The health care law will require everyone to buy insurance.  Those who can't afford it will evidently receive some kind of govt support in getting it (that part has changed back and forth.)  It seems to me that this is potentially a huge moneymaker for the insurance companies, as they will have a nationally captive market.  Don't assume for a minute that they won't set premiums at levels that guarantee them a healthy profit...and we all have to pay. Personally, I don't see how requiring everyone to buy health insurance from a commercial carrier is significantly different than requiring all drivers to buy car insurance from a commercial carrier, so I guess there's plenty of precedent for this approach. (Yes, there's a big difference in that driving is a privilege rather than a right...not so for the health insurance...but bear with me.)

So - that means everyone will pay a commercial insurance carrier some amount, right?  And for those too poor to pay for it, they'll be covered by the government - using tax money evidently paid to commercial insurance carriers.

B) If the bill had gone entirely to a publicly run option, then the government would be running the health care coverage (an idea that many people detest, for reasons well discussed in this thread) and the insurance premium payments people would otherwise be making to commercial carriers would instead become taxes paid to the govt. There is much to debate about whether the govt would run such a program cost effectively or well, but let's set that aside - it's beside my point.  In this case, poor people would be covered essentially the same way they will be with the other plan - via tax money.  In Option A you pay premiums, in Option B you pay taxes.  In both cases, you're obligated to pay.

In my mind, from the consumer's point of view there's not a lot of difference between paying $$ to a commercial insurer with a profit motive vs. paying taxes to a govt agency which runs health care but has no profit motive.  I suppose the change would ripple through the economy because commercial health insurers would either be out of business or assume some new role in such an arrangement, although it appears to me they would be superfluous.  They are huge businesses, so that would likely have negative effects on the economy.

This whole approach seems to me to be a gift that assures insurance companies of ongoing income and a major - if not controlling - role in the logistics of health care, and mandating that these billions will go through commercial companies seems like a fantastic deal for the insurers.  They may not like the provisions about pre-existing conditions and similar changes, but they'll just raise their rates to cover those provisions.

I'm sure many people assume that commercial firms have more motive to insure an effective system than government would and will therefore be more cost-effective and efficient, but I'm not entirely convinced...and the idea of guaranteeing them profits in perpetuity doesn't thrill me.

Do I have the picture SOMEWHAT right?  

[Dave W]

...

This whole approach seems to me to be a gift that assures insurance companies of ongoing income and a major - if not controlling - role in the logistics of health care, and mandating that these billions will go through commercial companies seems like a fantastic deal for the insurers.  They may not like the provisions about pre-existing conditions and similar changes, but they'll just raise their rates to cover those provisions.

...

Do I have the picture SOMEWHAT right?  

Not just somewhat right, you hit the nail on the head. The insurers are very happy about this. They bought and paid for this bill, no matter what rhetoric you hear.

[Nocturnal]

I received this in an email, but I haven't been able to verify it yet.

    "The government will not be allowed to impose any kind of price controls over the health insurance providers, so they can hike the cost of insurance as much as they want without fear of governmental intervention."

So far in the brief search that I tried I couldn't find a real answer to it. Does anyone here know for sure if it's true or false?

[Pilgrim]

I can't confirm, but I think you're wise to question it.  There are many outright lies being circulated by people who are so adamantly opposed to the idea that they'll do almost anything to try and discredit it.  There are plenty of wackos on both sides.

That said, I doubt there's any way to keep insurance companies from adjusting premiums to whatever level they want - the govt would have to live in their auditor's offices to avoid it.

[Chaser001]

Owing to the fact that politics can't really be discussed, there is much I can't say.  However, I have just read two articles at random about the heath care bill.  Essentially, both articles were comparing the opponents to the bill to secessionists who brought on the American Civil War.  However, the historical analogies go beyond that.  One writer said that the resistance to the health care bill could be compared to a small-scale version of Kristallnacht.  This is from one of the regular columnists of what I would consider America's most famous newspaper.  This goes far beyond hyperbole.  I hardly even know what to say about this. 

[OldManC]

Contra those who paint with such wide strokes for their own purposes, it's hardly surprising that some citizens might have solid philosophical, political, and even practical reasons to oppose *this version* of health care 'reform'. I don't think it makes one an extremist to look at the IRS, the DMV, military procurement, Medicare, and Social Security and be afraid at what even more government control over U.S. health care might mean for future medical care, let alone future government spending and the economic survival of our nation.

There's enough hyperbole to go around on all sides, but one thing I've appreciated in this thread is that most of us have steered clear of that temptation. I would hope that it will stay that way.

[Chaser001]

I just find it an insult to the intelligence of the American public when I start looking for articles at random and find the same talking points.  This is presented as original thinking on the part of the columnists involved.  In fact, it is an obvious coordinated effort to present what is really nothing more than propaganda.  Plus, I didn't even point out one tenth of what was actually said.  That would have been far too controversial.  Speaking of historical analogies, this reminds me as much of "Pravda" and "Izvestia" from the Soviet era as anything else. 

[Pilgrim]

I just find it an insult to the intelligence of the American public when I start looking for articles at random and find the same talking points.  This is presented as original thinking on the part of the columnists involved.  In fact, it is an obvious coordinated effort to present what is really nothing more than propaganda.  Plus, I didn't even point out one tenth of what was actually said.  That would have been far too controversial.  Speaking of historical analogies, this reminds me as much of "Pravda" and "Izvestia" from the Soviet era as anything else.  

That's really well put.  In the push to demonize the other side (regardless of which side you're on), neither one has shared a lot of good information with media.  All we get is talking points.  I don't even listen to majority and minority leaders any more, because they have become nothing but talking points with feet.

It makes me wonder whether people in such positions realize how little credibility they have other than with people who are already drinking their Kool-Aid.  There's really no effort to communicate with people who want well-reasoned analysis.  The parties seem convinced that this approach is what they need (to talk with their 'base") - but I think it contributes to that widespread disapproval of Congress that was discussed earlier.

[drbassman]

Good points folks.  I'm with the Old Man.  I love my country, but I am very suspicious of growing government.  It's just not for me.  Less is more, as a wise man once said.

[Dave W]

I received this in an email, but I haven't been able to verify it yet.

    "The government will not be allowed to impose any kind of price controls over the health insurance providers, so they can hike the cost of insurance as much as they want without fear of governmental intervention."

So far in the brief search that I tried I couldn't find a real answer to it. Does anyone here know for sure if it's true or false?

If there's one thing I've learned in all these years online, it's that whatever you see in widely circulated emails is probably false. No matter what the subject is.

OTOH I'm sure all the millions the health insurance providers poured into lobbying will protect them from losing money. They'll be able to pass on their cost increases to the consumer. You can count on it.

You can also count on even bigger insurance premium increases once this bill takes full effect in a few years. When you put more consumers into an existing market, costs rise. Politicians either don't understand this or pretend not to.

[lowend1]

When you put more consumers into an existing market, costs rise. Politicians either don't understand this or pretend not to.

Is that called "The Law of Supply and Idiots"?

[nofi]

if traditionally conservative corporate entities like the insurers and drug companies had a part in this, then there is plenty of blame to go around for those not happy with this bill.

[Freuds_Cat]

[Pilgrim]

Hey, that was pretty fun!