And again I ask: if the insurance companies can make a respectable profit without screwing people into bankruptcy, why aren’t they? If they could, but won’t, I suggest that they are, in essence, an ongoing criminal enterprise in that they work contrary to the well-being of our people.
And if they can’t make a respectable profit without such disgraceful behavior, then what fucking good are they?
I understand that part, but I’m not sure why insurance companies having more power makes it less likely that Congress will do something that makes things worse. Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I can think of many scenarios where things are better for the insurance companies, but worse for us. It’s “us” I’m worried about. When you tinker with public policy on this scale, it’s not even all that obvious that you can even know if it’s going to make things better or worse.
Right now it seems like we are setting up some hybrid system that has never been tried in any country before. Something that has many of the benefits other countries seem to have, but with the legacy of our crazy system (employer based medical coverage) largely unchanged.
I assume by “screwing people into bankruptcy,” we’re talking about dropping coverage for people who develop an expensive disease. Attempting to drop people who become expensive is a real problem, and as you suggest, deplorable behavior on the part of insurance companies. If we could solve that problem by passing a law, we would do so. But we can’t. There’s just no way to prevent insurance companies from making bullshit by technically correct contract arguments for why they are allowed to drop coverage.
What we can do about it is require coverage of pre-existing conditions. But let’s recognize that this is killing flies with a sword. The fix eliminates the incentives to drop people, but it also partially turns insurance companies into charity firms instead of insurance companies. Insurance is about managing risks. If the risk has already occurred, getting some new insurance to cover you is just charity, not insurance.
Which is not to say the solution isn’t a justified response. But just that it goes well beyond the problem, in a way that probably would prevent insurance companies from being profitable if other changes weren’t made along with it. Do you think flood insurance would be profitable is they were required to cover flood damage that occurred before people bought the insurance?
Like what though? What action do you think is politically viable that would help insurance companies but hurt the public at large?
Agreed. I think that’s a fundamentally wise and small-c conservative position to hold. But, as always, it’s a question of the alternatives. It appears to me that doing nothing is far worse than risking uncertain change. And although the Senate bill looks like it will be one vote short of passage, a one vote margin is probably smaller than the margin on any other serious attempt at reform.
Claims of making up for extra costs by gaining ill-defined “efficiencies”. We see that all that time. I’m just not getting why you say that now that the Insurance companies have more power, that we’re not going to see Congress do something stupid. Maybe I’m not getting where you think this additional power comes from. What happened to give them more power, and how does that constrain Congress?
By one vote short, do you mean in the House? If so, where does that calculus come from? If you mean the Senate, well, that’s moot since it already passed.
Inaction. They are poring a metric buttload of money into assuring that no action is taken at all. The status quo enriches them, hurts us, and that is perfectly dandy, so far as they are concerned. Politically viable? Well, they are winning, aren’t they?
I think the Citizens United decision will give them more power. I think it further constrains Congress from passing the parts that are opposed by insurance companies as piecemeal reforms. Aside from stupidly adding an insurance mandate without the other pieces, or requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions without the other pieces, I don’t see what politically viable and damaging possibilities are on the horizon. (Though I suppose I shouldn’t underestimate the power of Congress to surprise me in that regard.)
I mean the Senate. It isn’t moot. The Senate has to re-pass the conference committee version of the bill if the House won’t ping-pong it. And, in any case, my point was just to illustrate how close this bill came to passing, by contrast to the political plausibility of any other possibility on the radar (i.e. single-payer, NHS, GOP reforms, etc.).
My question was directed at John Mace’s fear that something damaging will be passed.
Can you do a little ignorance fighting-- I’m not familiar with the Citizens United decision.
But you and I started this banter based on your statement that you thought the Senate bill was still alive. Maybe I’m over-reading the House, but if they don’t pass the Senate Bill, I can’t see the Republicans cooperating on re-writing this bill. Certainly not before the next election, and then all bets are off.
Pelosi said the votes aren’t there for the House to back the Senates terrible bill. They could start over. Only this time make the Repubs carry out a fiibuster , not just a procedure but stand up and defend the Health Insurance Companies bill that they passed.
Only 32% of Americans think Congress should make HCR a top priority, and only 39% think they should pass the Senate bill. Link. I don’t see how that gets a HCR bill passed in the short term unless it’s so watered down as to be meaningless. And, as we have seen, it would be disaster to try and pass just pieces of this bill w/o the other necessary checks and balances.
Word form the WH is that Obama is going to emphasize jobs in his SOtU speech.
I guess wouldn’t so no chance the bill get passed, but it looks very unlikely.
Of course we could solve that problem by passing a law, if the Republicans would allow it. The solution is to set up an insurance agency that’s motivated by the well-being of the people, rather than by profit. But there’s no way that the for-profit insurance companies could compete in a fair free market with such an agency, so the folks representing the interests of the insurance companies (unfortunately not just Republicans; I intend to do my part to vote out Max Baucus at the next opportunity) won’t allow it.
It’s the campaign finance decision that protects corporate advertising on political issues from spending limits.
Right, but that makes the Republican intransigence very relevant, rather than moot.
In any case, as I said, my point was simply that this attempt got closer than any attempt in the last century. And that was quite close indeed. The political winds wouldn’t have to shift much, and really only in Maine, for it to be viable again. And it is certainly more viable than any alternative.
Sure, if you think a government agency would be motivated by the well-being of the people. But what I meant was that I don’t see any regulation of insurance companies that could be passed that would prevent dropping coverage that is more narrow than the proposal in question.
Does anyone know how much money the health insurance companies lost in the latest colossal goat-fuck? They invest their money, yes? Probably invest it in triple-A rated stuff that was posolutely, absitively rock-solid. Except, that it wasn’t.
And yet, they have millions of dollars available to influence the electorate and hire high-powered lobbyists. So they are in the excellent position of spending our money to fuck us over.
Maybe, just maybe, a hippy is not the best source for analysis of high-falutin’ finance, we’re really better at military strategy and frisbee aerodynamics. But this doesn’t quite add up. If, as they claim, they are just getting along on a modest profit, then where is all this money coming from? I mean, its a gamble, isn’t it? Its always possible that the power of Money will not conquer (if the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes…), its possible that they will spend all that money on lobbyists and astro-turf and lose, yes?
Then what? Now, that money is pissed away, is not available for payouts to victims, not available to invest in rock-solid firms like AIG. Is that why they are fighting so hard, because if they lose, they’re totally boned?
:smack: Of course I know that. Somehow I was compartmentalized on HCR and thought it was an amendment to the bill.
Yeah, I basically agree with that. The problem is that our political weather vane doesn’t really fire up again until November.
So to clarify, your prediction is that a health care bill will be passed this year, and it will inlcude coverage for pre-existing conditions, insurance mandates, subsidies so people can afford them, and cost controls.
Obama and company could’ve made that argument, and maybe they could’ve sold it. But they didn’t; from the start, we’ve been told in reassuring tones that ‘if you like your coverage, you can keep it.’ Now, I of course know why they’ve constantly framed it that way; upwards of 80% of folks polled have been saying from the start that they’re satisfied with their coverage, and so touting some new insurance agency that existing companies can’t compete with (and would bankrupt themselves trying) is a huge PR no-no.
So the Dems have instead largely pitched it as helping to cover more Americans, while the Republicans have talked about how great it would be if the companies could compete against each other across state lines – which is to say, the Dems sound to most folks like they’re saying “we’re out to help other people” and the Republicans sound like they’re saying “we’re out to help you.”
No, wait: “we’re out to spend your money helping other people” versus “we’re out to help you by spending less of your money protecting monopolies.”
The former is almost as bad a losing argument as “if you like your coverage, you can’t keep it.”
No. If you want a prediction, you could summarize my prediction as being that a health care bill including coverage for pre-existing conditions, insurance mandates, subsidies so people can afford them, and cost controls will eventually be passed because the alternatives on the horizon - the middle class paying double their current premiums or Congress passing some alternative reform - are even less likely. If you want a time parameter, I’d guess probably by the end of the Obama administration, depending on how fast premiums rise without reform.
To summarize the state lines thing: Right now, I have Blue Cross of Montana, someone in Ohio has Blue Cross of Ohio, and someone in Connecticut has Blue Cross of Connecticut, and none of us has a choice about that. If the Republican plan to let them deal across state lines went through, then I’d have Blue Cross of Connecticut, someone in Ohio would have Blue Cross of Connecticut, and someone in Connecticut would have Blue Cross of Connecticut, and we still wouldn’t have a choice. And, in fact, me and the guy in Ohio would have to give up our current plans.
“Golly, that sure is a great counterargument; I’m now convinced that we should keep the current system, which, like I’d said, I’m quite satisfied with, just like 80% of my fellow Americans are. Man, no wonder the Republicans are only floating their drop-state-barriers plan as an alternative to the Democratic plan; it’s arguably the lesser of two evils, but neither beats the status quo of not Having To Give Up Our Current Plans.”
That said, I disagree with your conclusion; I picked my auto insurance from a long list of viable interstate alternatives, and I have no reason to figure health insurance wouldn’t do likewise. But if I’m wrong and you’re right, then we’re left debating whether either alternative beats the current plans that overwhelming majorities are satisfied with – and the Republicans don’t need to win that one; the Dems, however, (a) do, and (b) haven’t.
OK. Well, my comment about the bill being dead was targeted at this particular Congress. I don’t know that I agree your prediction is obviously true, but it’s not obviously false.
That a bill will not pass this year is a pretty solid lock.