Unjustly, then? Is that the implication, that they are unjustly accused for sheer political advantage, innocent victims of lefty propaganda? All these stories of people being victimized, they are all just made up?
Would you like to back down on that now, or later?
The deal was for a bill with no public option. Drug companies are not opposing the bill. All the insurance companies are opposing right now is a public option and an early medicare buy in. That’s not the same thing as opposing the entire bill.
It all depends upon what you consider “victimized”. Should an insurance company authorize an experimental, horribly expensive treatment for a terminally ill patient with the slim possibility of success? Should an insurance company authorize a heart/liver transplant for a 75-year-old person? Should an insurance company authorize the dispensing of the new wonder drug that costs millions over the remaining life expectancy of a 35-year-old? Is that what you would advocate as good use of your pooled premiums?
I believe this all started when people got the idea that “insurance” turned into “maintenance”. Do you make a claim to your auto insurance for an oil change or a new set of tires? No. You only make a claim when something catastrophic happens. That’s how it should be now, if you’re not feeling well you pay for the doctor’s visit, and insurance covers catastrophic treatment if necessary (and reasonable- see above examples).
Of course, the “insurance” companies dug their own graves when they started HMOs and PPOs and put themselves in the health maintenance business so they are certainly not exempt from blame, and in fact probably deserve most of it. But I think if we got away from this model we’d all be much better off.
The notion that preventive maintenance could save costs down the line - crazy talk! I don’t know what possessed the insurance companies to even start to entertain such a deluded idea.
I’d give your position some credence if the maintenance wasn’t so bloody expensive. It feels wasteful to using my insurance to cut the cost of my $15 pills in half. But when they tell me it’ll cost six hundred dollars to fix the fillings in one tooth, bring on that maintenance insurance now!
And that is why it costs so much. You pay 10 times that every year because you bill the insurance company for every ailment. The insurance company wins every time you use less healthcare than your premium. They lose when you use more. And who uses that much coverage? People who need it. Twice a year to the dentist with a filling, an eye checkup and a complete physical go for what? $1000 or so? Small price to pay to reduce your premiums, wouldn’t you say? I certainly would.
You pay it anyway, whether you bill your insurance company or not. If it were more along the lines of auto insurance it would be cheaper for everybody.
Yes, unjustly. Because even if every single insurer screwed over every single customer, the goal of this legislation is to expand the problem, by prohibiting the insurers from offering all their customers a fair price for their services even if they want to, and fining anyone who refuses to sabotage their capacity to pay their own costs by buying this overpriced service.
Don’t you have laws about breaking contracts or against corporations acting unconscionably? How about you enforce them instead of using it as an excuse for this rubbish?
They did it for money, they did it with all of the compassion of a spreadsheet. They already had us used to paying gobs of money for insurance, we were used to it, we accepted it, so the inflow was well set. Outflow, now there’s another matter.
Study upon study has shown that preventive care works, a modest investment in maintenance returns a great savings in repair. You might well change your oil with perfect competence, but wouldn’t it be cool if you could have the guys from Car Talk watch you and make fun of your automotive ignorance? When they might point to something and say “Hey, Davey, your torsion valves are out of alignment so your muffler bearings are probably next…Spend a dollar ninety five at Crown Auto and save your rear end…”
So they got into programs to promote well-being. A perfectly sensible choice, because it saves them money. I have no complaint with that.
What I have a complaint with is cost-saving gestures that leave people desperately fighting a battalion of lawyers to get what they paid for. More and more, it seems as people don’t really have “insurance”, so much as a ticket making them eligible to play Wheel of Coverage. That’s what I was talking about.
I’m not a fan of the guy, but I have to go with Dean on this one. I would almost rather they ditch the bill, it’s become so watered down.
The problem is that the Democrats are essentially beyond the point of no return. They’ve invested so much time and effort into this thing that if they pull out now they’ll end up looking like total pussies (which I would argue they are). They have to pass SOMETHING, regardless of whether or not it ends up helping that many people.
Chris Cillizza made a good point about this in the Washington Post today. Here’s a quote from his column:
“It’s sort of like waiting in a REALLY long line at Disneyworld – sure you’ve been in line for hours on end but getting out of line is way worse than waiting another hour.”
Stories! I love stories !! How many stories does it take to decide to totally takeover about 12 % (or whatever it is) of our economy?
Think back to 1994. No imagination needed.
I think ‘support’ is a bit overstated, but their efforts to kneecap the bill have been much more muted and under the radar than they were the last time. You take what you can get.
I am with Nate Silver here and never understood the fuss over the “public option”. We needed a bill that significantly decreases the number of the uninsured without breaking the bank. This does it. Its combination of a mandate with a subsidy for purchase and at least some (admittedly small) movement to stop subsidizing the purchase of heathcare coverage the most to those who make the most (which is the net effect of the payroll tax deduction) does the job. Built in are also the systems which longer term will reign in costs.
It gets many more people covered with health insurance than would otherwise have covered - per 538 10% more than the status quo and at essentially the same costs as we spend now.
And you know something, like most negotiated solutions you have the best sign that you have it right - both sides are unhappy with the result!