Impeding changes to our Health Care system

I really dont know why I am bothering anymore.

Carry on.

[TheMercenary]

So help me out here REDux. Are you trying to tell us that because the Bill has not been finalized that you are saying and defending that cuts to Medicare Advantage have not been actually approved and therefore they really are not going to cut the program? or they are not going to cut Medicare reimbursement at all and the program, as currently proposed, will not have cuts to Medicare?

Please defend if you believe any of this. thanks.

Merc...I just dont have the patience anymore.

Say what you want, post what you want, declare yourself the winner, criticize me as a lobbyist and Democratic mouthpiece, pretend that you are posting factual and timely editorials,.....

Its all good!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Merc...I just dont have the patience anymore.

Say what you want, post what you want, declare yourself the winner, criticize me as a lobbyist and Democratic mouthpiece.

Its all good!

Care to defend that you are not?

You know the least you could do is admit it...

[TheMercenary]

Come on Redux. All I want you to do is defend the proposed cuts by your Demoncratic guys and gals in Congress. Tell my 89 year old mother how that is going to make her life better and save her money without cutting or decreasing her benefit. Thanks. I am waiting.

Merc...I stand by my posts, just as you stand by yours.

As I again stated previously, I am comfortable with others reading through this entire discussion and deciding for themselves.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Merc...I stand by my posts, just as you stand by yours.

As I again stated previously, I am comfortable with others reading through this entire discussion and deciding for themselves.

Come on Mate, I am only asking you to defend the cuts to seniors. That is all. It is your party that is making the cuts, or if you want to sugar coat it, proposing the cuts. Just defend the position of cutting off my 89 year old mother and the rest of the seniors that depend on Medicare Advantage. Pretty simple.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Come on Mate, I am only asking you to defend the cuts to seniors. That is all. It is your party that is making the cuts, or if you want to sugar coat it, proposing the cuts. Just defend the position of cutting off my 89 year old mother and the rest of the seniors that depend on Medicare Advantage. Pretty simple.

Proposing cuts that have been lining the pockets of Medicare Advantage providers at excess levels is not the same as proposing cuts to patients...particularly with amendments that protect the patients.

We see it differently...it is as simple as that and others will form their own opinions.

There is nothing more for us to debate.

And, lets not forget that today, it was a Republican Senator who blocked a simple bill that would freeze your grandmother's Medicare B costs for another year.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/10...care_bill.html

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Proposing cuts that have lining the pockets of Medicare Advantage providers is not the same as proposing cuts to patients...particularly with amendments that protect the patients.

We see it differently...it is as simple as that and other will form their own opinions.

There is nothing more for us to debate.

And, lets not forget that today, it was a Republican Senatir who blocked a simple bill that would freeze your grandmother's Medicare B costs for another year.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/10...care_bill.html

The cuts are to the patients. The cuts are to the providers. The cuts are across the board. Can you defend it?

It ain't my grandmother, it is my mother.

And, lets not forget that today, it was a Republican Senatir who blocked a simple bill that would freeze your grandmother's Medicare B costs for another year.

Strawman and deflection of the argument that you CANNOT defend. Just admit it. Your party is going to royally fuck seniors on Medicare.

[TheMercenary]

As I stated earlier in this discussion there is no control of the Insurance Industry in any plan before Congress to radically overhall our Healthcare. I also stated that I felt like the insurance companies were making back door deals with the White House. And that due to lack of controls, the insurance industry would just pass on their costs to those who have insurance. Well it looks like the press is now documenting those very rumblings. As I have said numerous times, this plan by Congress does not fix the problems at the root of the illness in healthcare today. Even though this is coming from the very companies who would profit from the changes proposed by Congress, there is nothing to say that they will not and cannot pass on any and all increased cost to the consumer. And in fact they are now coming right out and telling us we are going to be screwed.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage..

Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is "a world-class firm" with "a stellar reputation," she said.

The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.

In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.

Finance Committee aides to Baucus said it's impossible to predict premiums down to the dollar because there are too many variables involved.

The technical issues behind the study are complex, and it will take time for neutral experts to deliver a final judgment. The issue boils down to questions of coverage and cost shifting.

The industry is arguing that the consequences of the bill will be shifted onto those who are already covered. Insurers are not alone. Representatives of the hospital industry have raised similar concerns, though in less stark terms.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091012/D9B9QLO81.html

[Henry]

If you check the schedule for penalties for not meeting the individual mandate to purchase health insurance , you find that it's cheaper to drop your insurance and pay the penalty (they begin low, a couple hundred $ per year), and if there's a mandate that private insurer's must not deny coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions, you could simply wait till you're diagnosed with something requiring treatment, go buy some health insurance, and then drop it the minute you don't need it anymore and go back to paying a couple 2-3 hundred $ per year in penalties instead of that much and more per month for a HI plan.

Those who doubt the efficacy and sincerity of the Baucus plan might find the devil in those details.

-------------------------------------

There is an age-old political tactic, so old and so venerated it's impossible to determine which party began it - and it's so old it may well predate both current parties - and its original authors are irrelevant because both parties have used it repeatedly, but it goes like this....

If you want/need to impose a tax, but the tax is known to be hugely unpopular among voters, certain to cost too many votes, you instead tax something or somebody those voters cannot do without, like utilities, fuel, food, etc. It works best if you impose this tax on somebody or something despised by the general tax-paying public, like, oh... big oil, big banking, big pharma, just about 'big' anything, as long as they are perceived - or can be made to be perceived - as an enemy of the common people.

So, you impose the tax on the 'big' target, they in turn pass the costs of the tax along to consumers - aka taxpayers - and the consumer/taxpayers grumble, piss, and moan, but most direct their anger at the forced middleman. In essence, the government has forced the target, via regulations and/or taxes, to become an involuntary tax collector.

Great gig.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Henry

If you check the schedule for penalties for not meeting the individual mandate to purchase health insurance , you find that it's cheaper to drop your insurance and pay the penalty (they begin low, a couple hundred $ per year), and if there's a mandate that private insurer's must not deny coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions, you could simply wait till you're diagnosed with something requiring treatment, go buy some health insurance, and then drop it the minute you don't need it anymore and go back to paying a couple 2-3 hundred $ per year in penalties instead of that much and more per month for a HI plan.

Those who doubt the efficacy and sincerity of the Baucus plan might find the devil in those details.

-------------------------------------

There is an age-old political tactic, so old and so venerated it's impossible to determine which party began it - and it's so old it may well predate both current parties - and its original authors are irrelevant because both parties have used it repeatedly, but it goes like this....

If you want/need to impose a tax, but the tax is known to be hugely unpopular among voters, certain to cost too many votes, you instead tax something or somebody those voters cannot do without, like utilities, fuel, food, etc. It works best if you impose this tax on somebody or something despised by the general tax-paying public, like, oh... big oil, big banking, big pharma, just about 'big' anything, as long as they are perceived - or can be made to be perceived - as an enemy of the common people.

So, you impose the tax on the 'big' target, they in turn pass the costs of the tax along to consumers - aka taxpayers - and the consumer/taxpayers grumble, piss, and moan, but most direct their anger at the forced middleman. In essence, the government has forced the target, via regulations and/or taxes, to become an involuntary tax collector.

Great gig.

Yeppers. And the practice has been honed to a sharpe effective edge over the last 2 years.

Originally Posted by Henry

If you check the schedule for penalties for not meeting the individual mandate to purchase health insurance , you find that it's cheaper to drop your insurance and pay the penalty (they begin low, a couple hundred $ per year), and if there's a mandate that private insurer's must not deny coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions, you could simply wait till you're diagnosed with something requiring treatment, go buy some health insurance, and then drop it the minute you don't need it anymore and go back to paying a couple 2-3 hundred $ per year in penalties instead of that much and more per month for a HI plan.

Those who doubt the efficacy and sincerity of the Baucus plan might find the devil in those details.

-------------------------------------

There is an age-old political tactic, so old and so venerated it's impossible to determine which party began it - and it's so old it may well predate both current parties - and its original authors are irrelevant because both parties have used it repeatedly, but it goes like this....

If you want/need to impose a tax, but the tax is known to be hugely unpopular among voters, certain to cost too many votes, you instead tax something or somebody those voters cannot do without, like utilities, fuel, food, etc. It works best if you impose this tax on somebody or something despised by the general tax-paying public, like, oh... big oil, big banking, big pharma, just about 'big' anything, as long as they are perceived - or can be made to be perceived - as an enemy of the common people.

So, you impose the tax on the 'big' target, they in turn pass the costs of the tax along to consumers - aka taxpayers - and the consumer/taxpayers grumble, piss, and moan, but most direct their anger at the forced middleman. In essence, the government has forced the target, via regulations and/or taxes, to become an involuntary tax collector.

Great gig.

Makes sense if you completely ignore the other Senate bill and the House bill and assume the Senate Finance Committee bill will be the final bill.

And, more important, ignores the regulatory process that will follow the legislation....unless, like Merc, you think Congress writes regulations.

What the latest industry report accomplished was make a stronger case for a broader exchange with a (limited version ) of a public option as envisioned in the other bills.

BTW....welcome, Henry.

Sticking with the Baucus, bill, tHe CBO analysis of the future costs of premiums (assuming the insurance exchange in the Baucus bill) offers a much different (unbiaised) analysis than the industry’s report:

Industry report: average premiums in 2016 - $21,300
CBO report: average premiums in 2016- $14,400

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc...f_Premiums.pdf

At least, the CBO has the integrity to also note that the “net effect” of the proposed legislation on premiums is difficult to determine because there are too many uncertain factors...but under any scenario it reviewed, it found that premiums would be far more affordable than the industry report suggests.

The industry is running scared because the momentum is building.....so now, even Merc is shilling for the industry, posting their "analysis" as the be all and end all (of course, we dont have access to the analysis behind the industry numbers, so its taken on faith if you (he) share their views on the bill).

And then the same old rhetoric based on industry reports and partisan editorials...declaring that the Democratic's proposals will "screw" the people, even before there is a final bill and despite more objective analyses.

[TheMercenary]

Ok, it is all a big lie and the insurance companies are not really going to pass on their costs to the people with insurance. They are just pretending they are going to pass those costs on and charge us more. They really aren't. They are just teasing us and daring Congress.

Sure. You go on believing that Redux. The majority of the public can see through any empty promise this Congress makes.