Comments on: Health Care: HELP Bill Released During Public Option Call With Sens. Dodd, Brown and Whitehouse

By: tejanarusa

tejanarusa — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:20:45 +0000

What I was trying to say, after how interesting this post is (which I have skimmed along with comments), and plan to skim the bill later, was to point out this column in the NYT today, by Prof Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton about how price has always been the method of rationing any good or service, including health care. He does a great job of briefly explaining how insurance companies ration now.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes......s-it-mean/

Sorry about the above truncation - must’ve hit send by accident.

By: tejanarusa

tejanarusa — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:16:32 +0000

eek! Where’s the rest of my post? So well-thought out, carefully drafted, etc.!/s

By: tejanarusa

tejanarusa — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:15:50 +0000

Skimming rapidlly - as usual, will have to come back for more thorough reading/digesting later.
Found a very interesting smackdown of the phony cries of “rationing!” in today’s NYT Economix column, by Prof. Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton, pointing out clearly how the private insurance companies ration things now.
Most interesting, he points out that basic economic theory assumes rationing by price.

I saved it as a quick reference for future arguments.

[As always, we tend to focus on issues that most affect us - once again, it looks like I’m going to be off COBRA, even with the Recovery Act subsidy, because when you get the bill, it covers all the months you weren’t on, and you have to pay it all at once.
Sigh.]
Single payer!
My focus is we have to get employers out of the health-insurance provision business to save both individuals and companies. I’m upset that this still goes through employers first.
Still, public option! public option!
Bbl.

By: redfish

redfish — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:42:59 +0000

This looks like an excellent bill all things considered. The reduced cost should give it some momentum and also could give rational GOP’ers and Blue Dogs a reason to support it.

By: Leen

Leen — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:11:56 +0000

keep pushing, calling go to D.C. when they come back after vacation. the only way we are going to get a complete public option is to keep pushing for single payer…let the Insurance companies know what they are up against

By: art3

art3 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:35:25 +0000

chocie is then crucial in our fight. a pub opt alone is nto enough. it msut be avail to all no matter the case. period.

By: ralphbon

ralphbon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:59:26 +0000

OTOH, there are going to be some kind of minimum standards that employer plans have to meet in order to be considered actual health insurance.

The problem with that, of course, is that standards on what a policy says do not translate into standards on what the insurer chooses to do. When the insurer says, “Well, the lab charged x and we’ll pay y, so you owe z,” the average American doesn’t have the wherewithal, or time, to investigate whether this statement conforms to standards or not. After the second or third dunning letter, unless the individual’s resources are already at the breaking point, he or she will typically break down and pay z, which all too often equals y or even x.

Only the widest possible capacity to fire private insurers for reflexive claims denials will generate the kind of competitive pressures the public option enthusiasts (with fingers crossed and knocking on wood) claim we’ll see under Obamacare.

By: art3

art3 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:42:00 +0000

what about pushing choice?
a question-should progressives push not just a strong pub plan but choice? see the sen help plan denies choice. if u dont like your employer’s crappy insurance u have no way out. u cannot opt into another plan if u want. obama has said u can choose whatever plan u want if u dont like it. ezra mentioned this too.

By: fatster

fatster — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:23:51 +0000

No wonder they didn’t want Howard Dean. He wouldn’t screw us.

Obama health czar directed firms in trouble
DeParle made millions from companies under federal investigation

By Fred Schulte
Investigative Reporting Workshop, American University
updated 6:18 a.m. PT, Thurs., July 2, 2009

“Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama’s health policy czar, served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions, according to government records reviewed by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

“Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator. Several of the cases ended with substantial fines paid to the federal government, even though the companies admitted no wrongdoing.

“Since leaving her government job running Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle built a lucrative private-sector career. Records show she earned more than $6.6 million since early 2001, according to a tally by the Investigative Reporting Workshop.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31.....ealth_care

By: Cynthia Kouril

Cynthia Kouril — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:15:38 +0000

I noticed this during the call. In fact, a writer from (was it Time magazine?) made a big deal about it.

If your employer based health insurance premium is less than 12.5% of your gross income, you are stuck with the employer plan, even if you hate it.

OTOH, there are foing to be some kind of minimum standards that employer plans have to meet in order to be considered actual health insurance.