Who could have guessed? Just like who could have guessed those who created the financial mess would get a vast portion of the bailout? It’s almost as if bribes… sorry, I keep doing that… I mean campaign contributions and such were involved. Yeah, I know. Crazy talk!
Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall.
The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers — many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies’ premiums.
“It’s a bonanza,” said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.
Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama’s massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry’s reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: “Hallelujah!”
The insurers’ success so far can be explained in part by their lobbying efforts in the nation’s capital and the districts of key lawmakers.
News!
Corporate personhood has been challenged in the Supreme Court
ANYTHING that keeps FOR PROFIT insurance in business is “making a bundle.”
For profit institutions suckling at government teats in exhange for bribes.
Hard to find a government expenditure where that relationship does not trump the “free market,” common sense, or appropriate regulation.
The point and purpose of a “health care system” is to have health care delivered–not to create a fair playing field for insurance companies or employment for doctors or lawyers or a safe voting block for political parties.
Read somewhere that price inflation in private insurance plans has been going up faster than the inflation in government plans==look for employers dropping private insurance as too expensive in about another 4-5 years.
Take out the rhetoric, and Obama looks like Bush. Total sell out.
So, uh, none of you read the whole article.
Like, it points out the public option would be a chance to counter some of the greed.
But, then, everyone here probably has health insurance fully funded by their employer. Right?
#4–Hey Alfie==”I would think any law limiting free speech, even against corporations, is erosion of the right, and possible precedent for taking free speech away from us.” /// That would be logical if and only if you view natural persons as on the same continuum of natural rights as corporations. Do you think corporations have inalienable rights as granted by god? How about Sub-S Partnerships? How about unincorporated associations? All god given???
I think the only continuum you have in mind is your own sanity, or lack thereof.
Still, it is interesting that corporations originally created solely as a business device has taken on all the “rights” of civil personhood with far less than all the “duties/liabilities” of civil personhood.
But, scratch one if a significant block of voters are as paranoid and as unthinking as Alfie, no change for corporatehood.
#5–stf==”Like, it points out the public option would be a chance to counter some of the greed.” /// Or not. What do you think Obama meant when he said “If I was starting from scratch, I would favor single payor?”
He is in a sense starting from scratch but keeping for profit insurance alive.
You do know that in politics “later” means “never” and “a chance to counter” means “continued funding of.”
Well, you can learn it now.
I cannot believe their is still American’s who think government is there to help them. Government has been in big businesses pocket for decades.
I think the Wall Street bailout and Auto maker bailouts says volumes to this. We need to have government without parties, without lobbyists and without special interest groups dictating what they want. Its obvious that when most polls of American’s on a issue are opposite of what the government is doing is not representing the people. I am not just talking health care but rather the war’s and the excessive spending that has been going on and yet our infrastructure (roads,bridges) has been falling apart. One must ask where our money goes that allows are country to fall apart and our economies to fail. Even at the local government level and yet we are not better off. Our politicians love to find new projects to make themselves famous for. Meanwhile everything else is crumbling.
From the article:
One of the Democratic proposals that most concerns insurers is the creation of a “public option” insurance plan. The industry launched a campaign on Capitol Hill against it, grounded in a study published by the Lewin Group, a health policy consulting firm that is owned by UnitedHealth Group. The lobbyists contended that a government-run plan, which would have favorable tax and regulatory treatment, would undermine private insurers.
whoops, accidentally hit “submit”
The lobbyists contended that a government-run plan, which would have favorable tax and regulatory treatment, would undermine private insurers.
Oh, those poooor private insurers! Forced to face real competition! Yes, it certainly would undermine their ability to charge whatever the hell they want.
I’m waiting for the wingnuts to come in and defend their right to pay whatever Big Insurance wants them to pay.
Health care should be NON profit.
#12
Non-profit does not mean you do not strive to lower costs and increase revenue. It simply means that profits are reinvested.
It is simply unreasonable to make health care free if that is what you are going. The first rule of economics is that there are no free lunches. The costs will come from somewhere.
I have noticed that this debate on health care has morphed a bunch of times. First it was about getting everyone covered. Then it was about lowering costs. Then it was about the “evil” insurance company premiums.
Regardless of your opinion about health care, you have to admit that Obama has done an extraordinarily poor job in selling his idea. His party controls both houses of Congress and he still can’t get something passed. This is the sort of growing pain adjustments that Senators goes through when they become President. As a Senator, they are all about comprise but as the executive, it is all about direction and leadership and convincing people to follow you. It sounds like he is regrouping and is going to consider his own proposal. If so, it would show that he is learning quickly.
#13–Tommie the Groundhog==”non-profit” was not used to instigate a discussion of accounting principals and general operating principles.
No, I think the excellent point Improbus made that you ignored or didn’t get was that health care should be non-profit as opposed to for-profit.
But thanks for taking the thread into a dead end for no purpose.
Thomas==do you think “for profit” business models have served Amerca’s need for health care as best that is possible or should REAL STRUCTURAL changes be implemented before we go bankrupt?
I would feel a lot better about paying for health care if we could examine the insurance companies books. Think that will happen? My Magic 8-ball says it isn’t likely. I want to know where the money is going. For each dollar the insurance companies receive I want a breakdown of how that money is used.
#13 Thomas, the point is that if we take the Insurance Companies’ fat profits out of the equation, we can provide more healthcare for the same amount of dollars.
Of course the Insurance Companies know that this is a death sentence for them, and they’re fighting it with all their resources.
For-profit healthcare is more efficient, but not in the way you think. It doesn’t deliver health care services more efficiently to its customers, it delivers the customer’s dollar more efficiently into their own pocket.
Here is more “Change and Hope” for you dummies.
There’s some interesting debate going around about the constitutionality of Congress requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. There seems to be enough doubt on the subject that I would expect it to go to court if that clause did make it into any passed legislation.
The latest issue of Rolling Stone has an article where journalist extroardinaire Matt Taibbi looks into the mess. He explains the situation in videos on the webtubes.
#18–Encinada==that does sound interesting. If the Feds can’t do it as a matter of constitutional rights, then neither can the States==and Mass is doing it, but I would agree the law is not well established in that area.
It seems rather convoluted to go thru this “personal purchase” routine when it is so naturally a function of general welfare and general taxation for which there is firm legal precedent.
With Universal Health Care the motivation to file lawsuits would decline but I would go further==outlaw lawsuits for cash totally. Allow lawsuits/complaints/filings to start a formal court like peer review process to see if the Doc needs correction/demotion.
Can save lots of money to the betterment of all with proper hopes and appropriate change.
I am what I am and thats all that I spam.
#21–Bobbo the asshole===heh, heh. Does it ever hurt?
#20, “If the Feds can’t do it as a matter of constitutional rights, then neither can the States”
It’s not a question of people’s rights, it’s a question of whether or not the federal government has been granted the power by the Constitution. Which is a separate question again from what the States are allowed to do through theirs.
#14
Peeling back your regular mindless dribble to get the one real question which is:”do you think “for profit” business models have served Amerca’s need for health care ”
Are we talking about the providing of health care or health care cost coverage? If the later, then the problem is that competition is currently limited and thus prices (premiums) are higher. Make it so that any insurance company can insure any individual in any State and require that insurance be sold to the individuals instead of employers and premiums will go down. I think right now, non-government corps have served America’s needs but there is obviously plenty of room for improvement which do not involve tearing down the whole system.
#16
> the point is that if we take
> the Insurance Companies’ fat profits
> out of the equation, we can provide
> more healthcare for the same amount of
> dollars.
Right, that’s the illusion. Suppose someone produces some product or service that makes obscene profits. Does that situation continue indefinitely? It does not because other competitors enter the market to get some of those profits. Eventually competition drives down those profits. Right now, competition for insurance is restricted. Remove those barriers and foster competition through regulation and like the auto insurance industry, premiums will go down. Do you care how much money the CEO of your auto insurer makes? No? Why not? The obvious reason is that if your premiums are too high you can easily switch to something else. That is where we need to be.
By your logic, we should have the government run all industries.
#23–SL==when riding the ass of the law, there are always more questions than you first perceive. Certainly, constitutional rights trump or must be resolved with other constitutional rights/restrictions. So, that would be a much more powerful position than mere “right to regulate.” As to that discussion, you have read Fusion’s many excellent summaires of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I’d rather go with what I guess is an unsettled area of the law, rather than a multiple time proven losing argument to make, but then I’m not a Sea Lawyer either.
Why would SSI be legal, and an identical provision for healthcare not be?
#24 I’m glad we agree that competition is good for the consumer. So why not add some more? Big companies “competing” among each other too often results in collusion and anti-competitive practices. A public option run by the government would be very efficient, low cost, and keep the competitive pressure on the for-profit insurance companies. It would probably be more scaled-down than what the private companies offer, but so what? The more choices of different plans, the better! What’s more American than competition?
#24–Tommie the Groundhog===oooooh, I am so close to pulling some fake umbrage here………….nah, so PHONY!!!!
But here is some dribble: why post in response to a dribbler and if responding, why get distracted in the dribble??? Kinda shows a lack of focus doesn’t it???? I think so.
1. “Make it so that any insurance company can insure any individual in any State”===haw, haw. Creating too big to fail insurance conglomerates? Good one. Is your radar so weak you can’t tell when you are being played for a dupe by Big Insurance?
2. “require that insurance be sold to the individuals instead of employers and premiums will go down” /// You obviously don’t understand the very nature, heart and soul, of insurance==it is risk determination, assessment, avoidance, spreading, etc. If all insurance carriers have to take all patients regardless of actuarial risk, then they will no longer be insurance companies, they will be bill processing companies only. Not a good recipe for cost reduction.
3. “I think right now, non-government corps have served America’s needs but there is obviously plenty of room for improvement which do not involve tearing down the whole system.” /// What a load of double talk. What “system” are you talking about tearing down? I have to guess at what you mean, and so guessing, YES==tearing down the whole system is EXACTLY what is needed.
4–You accuse me of dribble and post your response to #16. Amusing. How many years after America is bankrupt does “eventually” play into your model???? Even Alan Greenspan has admitted “I was wrong” thinking market place self regulation would curb the excess of investment bankers. Silly to carry the same banner.
I could have insured you all against eventualities just like this. Since this is a pre-existing condition your SOL but I have a new program that you can afford. Just send me $10.00 an I’ll tell you all about it. Send you r money in now. Don’t be the only one uninsured in times like these. Just $10.00 will get you peace of mind in these troubled time. Don;t delay!
#25, well, since I generally view Fusion to be a clown who thinks that judicial reinterpretation is just as good as going through the proper amendment process, I’ll leave the extolling of his “excellent summaries” to you.
The government doesn’t have a right to regulate. It only has those powers which were granted to it by the Constitution. So unless you can show that the federal government, in requiring the purchase of health insurance, is violating some prohibition placed on it, then the only other question is: was the power to do so ever granted in the first place?
#29–SL==anything that affects commerce can be regulated by Congress under the ICC. You can’t grow pot at home for personal use because it affects IC. Blacks got civil rights because discrimination affected IC. I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS—but its the well established law.
Why would SSI be legal, and an identical provision for healthcare not be?
#30, yes, that is the modern interpretation. So like I said, why go through the difficult process of actually making a legitimate amendment to the law, when you can just get a judge to change the meaning of it?
“You can’t grow pot at home for personal use because it affects IC.”
Interestingly enough, that is based on the ridiculous idea that if you grow your own, you are effecting commerce because you are able to avoid engaging in any. Hooray for the stellar reasoning abilities of FDR’s Supreme Court.
#31–SL==so you agree the constitution has been interpreted to allow ICC to control everything. Why are you arguing???
If you think Fusion looks like a clown, you better not stare into that mirror yourself.
Soc Sec passed in 1935. Yes, very modern law for us. Do you have any reason to think SS/SSI will be overturned by activist judges???
Have you had your morning coffee SL? You need something to kick you back on track.
#32 well, I won’t say that ICC has been transformed to allow it to control everything, but I will agree that it has turned into a monster far beyond its original purpose (considering the language of that clause hasn’t changed since 1787). At least you admit to not agreeing with these interpretations, whereas Fusion seems to be just fine with it as long as it enables his goals.
“… you better not stare into that mirror yourself.”
Ha! I don’t take myself that seriously to not be willing to wear a big red nose occasionally.