Skip to main content

View Diary: If this bill is so good for insurers and so bad for Dems ... (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The game is not merely over policy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany, Deathtongue

    It's also over politics.  I'd like a commitment from all Democratic Senators that there will be straight-up votes on ten recommended individual reforms offered by Potter once the bill passes.  Would that mollify you?

    •  I saw your post last night on this. There were (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder

      some very good ideas there.

      One important one is that families making $50K should NOT be asked to pay anywhere NEAR 17% of that (net) for HC.  That may drive families completely under.  Those numbers need to be MUCH higher (income).  And, as you know, $50K in SF is very different than $50K in Boise.

      If people cannot afford to pay the rates, they should either be immediately signed into Medicare.  Not buy in, signed up.  It is the less expensive approach especially given the cost of indigent care.  Subsidies don't cut it.  I cannot afford another dime/month right now and I do not qualify for Medical or anything else.  Subsidies don't pay FOR the insurance, they help with it.  And in my case, for instance, if I could afford a doctor, I sure couldn't afford deductibles and co-pays.  Right now their is no lifetime cap (again).  So people with severe illness are screwed (just like now).  In my case, Seneca, all they would be doing is throwing money at an insurance company and I would never be able to use it... but tax dollars (not mine) would be paying for that.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      They MUST ban all charging for pre-existing conditions.  MUST. All. As of now, they can charge.

      Those are starters.  Oh yeah, and get rid of the anti-trust protection.  Further, they must have an equitable means for insureds to challenge company decisions outside of courts and not by some industry stacked lackey board.  IF PEs are exempted, that would necessarily exempt fraud for non-disclosre.  REAL fraud?  Sure. Have at it.  AND include doctors, hospitals, medical device/service companies and pharma.

      866-338-1015 toll-free to Congress in D.C. USE it!

      by cany on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 12:05:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do those seem like popular proposals to you? (6+ / 0-)

        If so, then having a deficient bill allows us to make them, to campaign on them, to scare the other side into allowing them.  (Again: the way to get good policy is to make use of political advantage.  That's why I want political advantage -- to be able to leverage it into good policy.)

        Now, how likely is any of this to get upperdown votes in the absence of a bill -- even a deficient bill?  They won't -- there's nothing to amend.

        You can't fix vaporware.  You can only fix actual software.  This, while buggy, has the advantage of not being vaporware.  Fixing it will be irresistible, in both senses.

        I hope that, if nothing else, I have convinced you that I'm not a craven idiot.  (Well, at least not on account of this.)

        •  Oh you are definitely NOT a craven (or any other (0+ / 0-)

          type) of idiot, Seneca.  I never thought that and never will.  You are extremely bright and I hold great respect for you.  But understand that while I see that, I disagree strongly with you on the bill for many reasons.  

          For instance, when you mentioned subsidies above, you and other don't seem to understand that doesn't PAY FOR the (uncapped) policy, nor the deductibles nor the co-pay.  Poor people cannot take from what they don't have TO PAY for something they cannot use, nor should they. This whole subsidy thing is really misunderstood.  PLUS, realize these very people will have the shitties policies because they STILL cannot afford something decent.  So the very ones we most need to help are the ones (again) getting kicked in the rear.

          Many of the assumptions people are making about the HC bills are not correct.  They MAY have been correct last week--even Monday morning--but they aren't now (caps and illness caps and subsidies for three).

          Furthermore, I have a REAL problem with forcing people who "happen" to be older to pay 300% higher rates (and realize PEs will be higher in this group which, as of now, the insurance company can charge individually for).

          Let me give you an example.

          Let's use me.

          I am a cancer survivor.  I have upper respiratory problems constantly. I have border line cholesterol issues.  I have had three right knee surgeries in the last 12 years.  

          So, I will pay, given my age of 56, 300% more than a 20 year old. Stack on my existing conditions each of which they can charge for and my cancer rating.

          And do you really WANT to pay for those existing conditions, each, in addition to a 300% rate above a 20yo?  

          Right now, if I were in the risk pool (the only insurance I can get) it would be $1600.00/mo.  I don't even MAKE that much money/month.

          People seem to assume that everyone just gets the 300% above rate.  Nope.

          Even with subsidies which would pay for a portion--and regardless of the fact I cannot make up the difference--YOU and other taxpayers would pick up that charge which is ludicrous.

          This is out-and-out highway robbery.  I won't support it.    

          866-338-1015 toll-free to Congress in D.C. USE it!

          by cany on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:16:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, and yes, I think many of the proposals I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Seneca Doane

          listed ARE popular absent a 55+ in Medicare (not a buy in, BTW).

          The problems I listed also MUST be addressed.

          866-338-1015 toll-free to Congress in D.C. USE it!

          by cany on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 10:17:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site