Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to Propose Federal Oversight of Rate Increases (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  false dichotomy. please. nt (0+ / 0-)

    " unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most" - Paul Krugman

    by output on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 06:55:52 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  As of today, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      J M F

      the federal government has no power whatsoever to regulate the prices of private insurers. If this provision is enacted, it will. The choice isn't false. It's clear.

      •  let's get real: the point of these (0+ / 0-)

        comments is that this plan is, at best, an ineffective and inefficient way to lower premiums; and at worst, an intelligence-insulting political stunt. i say that it's a false dichotomy because even if it were a halfway sincere effort, the power to regulate comes in many shades of gray that cannot be reduced to "the power to regulate" (already residing, by the way, in the states) or not.

        " unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most" - Paul Krugman

        by output on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:06:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're flailing... (0+ / 0-)

          I understand the instinct to oppose the President on just about everything. I've been opposed to this healthcare bill for some time. But a good idea is a good idea. You either want to give the federal government the power to regulate health insurance prices or you don't. It doesn't affect any other issues on which I probably agree with you. Even if we had a Medicare for all bill, i'd be in favor of giving the Federal government the power to regulate prices.

          •  flailing? can't you address the substance (0+ / 0-)

            of my comment? are we down to me not being sufficiently hopeful?

            " unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most" - Paul Krugman

            by output on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:11:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here's your quote: (0+ / 0-)

              this plan is, at best, an ineffective and inefficient way to lower premiums; and at worst, an intelligence-insulting political stunt.

              You rest that conclusion on this premise:

              The insurers have been playing the regulation game a long time and quite successfully.  Why would this commission be any different than those in states who continually fail to reign in premium increases?

              This is called the fallacy of inductive generalization or statistical generalization. It's a common argumentative error for the untrained.

              The argument for the policy rests on different premisis, rather than such fallicies.

              1. Federal regulation is, both generally and specifically, more effective than state regulation.
              1. Some states do not have the power to regulate insurance rates. Federal review will solve this problem.

              If you agree with #1 and #2, it isn't difficult to conclude that federal regulation of prices is a better scenario that not having it.

              Now, as you say, it all depends on how vigorously one regulates. Well, you can't regulate at all if you don't have the authority. So that is the discussion one should have after said power is granted, correct?

              •  you're MISQUOTING now? you guys do play dirty! (0+ / 0-)

                The insurers have been playing the regulation game a long time and quite successfully.  Why would this commission be any different than those in states who continually fail to reign in premium increases?

                I didn't say that.

                " unfortunately, insurers compete mainly by trying to excel in the art of denying coverage to those who need it most" - Paul Krugman

                by output on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:26:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  yep.. cherry picking and lemon dropping ends now! (0+ / 0-)

        standardizing the benefit packages, so everybody knows what they're paying for, will force companies to compete with the voluntary Public Option.  Once people understand that they can get the SAME benfits, with fewer administrative hassles and without contributing to shareholders' profits, then "we the people" can vote with our pocketbooks on which plan we choose.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site