Preexisting Conditions
by Big Dog on Mar 11, 2010 at 04:48 Political
The health care takeover is on life support and all the socialist medicine in the world might not be able to save it. This has not stopped Barack Obama from campaigning around the country and it has not stopped those who think they have a right to government paid health care from holding rallies.
At a recent rally those with the microphone led crowds in chants about free health care for all.
Many young people do not understand that they will be required to buy their own health insurance. They complain that health insurance is too expensive but they will be forced to buy health insurance and there is no way the cost will go down.
The mandate to buy health insurance is needed to cover people with preexisting conditions. Insurance companies routinely refuse to cover people with preexisting conditions. I think there should be reform to require them to cover the preexisting conditions but also allows them to charge more for the insurance. Why should people, many of them young and healthy, be required to pay huge amounts of money in order to cover the elderly and those with preexisting conditions?
The left likes to tell us that since government can force you to have car insurance it is legal for it to force you to have health insurance. This is untrue because you have a choice NOT to drive. Since they use that analogy, let’s go with it a bit further. Car insurance companies require bad drivers to pay more money for car insurance. If this is allowed then why not require those with preexisting conditions to pay more for health care coverage?
The funny thing is that the same liberals who applaud employers who refuse to cover their workers who smoke (to keep costs down) demand that government require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions which are not covered to, wait for it…
Keep costs down.
The health care takeover bill is losing Democrats and the trust issues and parliamentary manipulation might just well bury this thing in the graveyard of bad legislation.
Right where it belongs.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, health care, mandates, Obama, preexisting conditions
“The left likes to tell us that since government can force you to have car insurance it is legal for it to force you to have health insurance. This is untrue because you have a choice NOT to drive.”
Actually, it’s even simpler than that: The roads are State property. To use another’s property with his permission, you must conform to his rules. One of those rules is that you must be insured against harm to others.
The whole pre-existent conditions matter misconceives the nature of insurance. Insurance is viable only in a realm of statistical knowledge plus individual uncertainty. For the insurer to make a profit, he must be able to amass statistical data about how many persons in a given cohort will require payments under their policies. What he must not be able to know is whether any one of those persons definitely will require a payment. For any sector of human activity, if either of those conditions is not met, there will be no insurance in that sector.
Don’t bother explaining that to a leftist. He’ll merely whine about “compassion” until your ears fall off, as if “compassion” were a market commodity that could or should be bought and sold…or made compulsory by law.
Porretto tries to hide his poop in some fancy intellectual clothes but when you unpack it, we see he’s just polishing the same old turd:
FRAN: “The whole pre-existent conditions matter misconceives the nature of insurance. Insurance is viable only in a realm of statistical knowledge plus individual uncertainty. For the insurer to make a profit,…”
DAR
And why do we need to have insurers, involved in basic necessary health care, making a profit on that part of health care? The answer is, we don’t. Just like we don’t need police departments, libraries, fire departments etc, making a profit. All of our peer countries have learned this, most of them the hard way.
When you allow basic, necessary, medical delivery to be a profit making enterprise you are going to have people excluded from access (usually the poor and sick) BECAUSE it interferes with profit. That’s just the way it is.
Porretto would have us believe that profit, money (even greed if he is a Randian toady) is the purpose of healthcare. That’s nonsense. Why can’t the purpose of health care be to provide healthcare to everyone that needs it?
That would be smarter. Oh, it would even be “compassionate” (he sneers).
Right now we have the most stupid and upside down situation imaginable. The people who need insurance the most (sick people) have the hardest time getting it (because they are sick). Why? Money and greed. It doesn’t have to be this way. Almost all of our peer countries have decided that, no, let’s allow insurance companies to make money on life insurance, Cadillac plans, cosmetic enhancements etc., all the fun stuff, but let’s BAN profit on the necessary life threatening stuff. They do this because if you don’t, you get the god awful mess of death, destruction and stupidity we have here where the people in need help the most, struggle the most.
FRAN: “…if either of those conditions is not met, there will be no insurance in that sector.”>>
DAR
Of course there will be. You just have society say: you insurance companies can make all the money you want on the unnecessary bits, but not the basic necessary health needs.
Sweden has tried both ways. When they observed that they were falling into the same mess we have now with sick people excluded, they changed back. Problem solved.
If you would like to read about their example, read [a href=”http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21102#p21102″>the excerpt I just posted here, to save space.
FRAN: “a leftist… [will] merely whine about “compassion” until your ears fall off, as if “compassion” were a market commodity…>>
DAR
Oh how you would love to make altruism a commodity you could sell eh? Then you could limit it and really drive the price up. Don’t you just love it when pseudo-Christians make fun of “compassion” as if it were a swear word? And then they bow their heads and open the “good book” and rationalize away what it says.
D.
——————
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” –John Kenneth Galbraith
Darrel, I see you have descended into the gutter in your replies- a shame, but not entirely unexpected, since the loss by the progressives on this bill will mean that Owebama will have spent one third of his one term on a useless and unpassable piece of legislation that reforms nothing and doesn’t bend the cost curve down, ad Dicky Durbin even admitted on the floor of the Senate.
But then, progressives have ALWAYS been tone deaf and selective in their ignorance of logic and common sense.
Fixed link.
“The health care takeover is on life support…”
Yet, public approval is meeting disapproval on the bill right in the middle. The more the public learns the truth about the bill the more they support it. They’re apparently no longer buying into GOP lies about this being a socialist takeover that is going to put granny to death early to cut costs, place sterilants in our drinking water, and make us all buy abortions for unfit mothers.
You progs keep on repeating the discredited mantra of, “The more the public learns, the more they support, yada,yada,yada-”
It will not pass, and this is a goood thing.
When this is swept out of the way, and we have flushed the detritus that is this fubar of a bill down the sewer, perhaps we can then concentrate on logical steps that WOULD improve health care without bankrupting the treasury.
“The health care takeover bill is losing Democrats…”
This is the same thing that your side said when the bill actually passed the House and Senate last year. There will be a bill. There will be plenty of continued GOP whining to go along with it, but there will be a bill.
No Adam, people have about a 50-50 approval when they are asked about certain aspects of reform. When asked about THIS bill people are largely not in favor of it.
Wrong. When asked about supporting the bill or a bill like the one proposed they are very close to half and half though the support for the bill is still lower.
The gap has closed between support and opposition in the last few weeks. It can in my opinion no longer be said the public is “largely not in favor of it.”
Adam, read this very interesting item in the Washington Post from two Democrat pollsters.
As you were saying about support….
There will be a bill…
Maybe not. The Republicans can use the strict rules of reconciliation to keep anything from being added that the House wants so now House members are more concerned that if they pass the Senate version they will not get it changed the way they want and Obama will just sign the Senate version into law, something the House does not want at all.
Pelosi has 197 votes at best.
But you made my earlier point, a bill will pass. They want to pass anything to claim victory but at what price?
“Pelosi has 197 votes at best.”
Pelosi is not incompetent and a buffoon like Reid. She’ll get this thing figured out because she knows the stakes involve not just people without health insurance but the short term viability of their party in Congress.
It’s a shame there wasn’t honest debate about the bill instead of talk of death panels and taxpayer funded abortions.
In order to have honest debate you have to allow all parties to come to the table. It is hard to debate when one side concocts deals behind closed doors. It is also hard to debate when the attitude is that bipartisan means you agree with us.
That’s all well and good, Adam, but I think a massive healthcare reform bill should be put on the back burner until the economy is fixed. There are some things that could be done now such as tort reform and giving insurance companies the right to compete across state lines. But we don’t know how much a big bill will cost. Even Illinois’ other senator, Dick Durbin, said yesterday that premiums will go up even if a bill is passed. And that doesn’t even address what it will cost taxpayers. One issue at a time. Obama is trying to do too much too soon resulting in not doing much at all. The stimulus package did not halt unemployment at 8%. Let’s fix the economy and the job situation first so we can pay for a healthcare bill in whatever form it is.
“The stimulus package did not halt unemployment at 8%.”
Unemployment was higher than 8% when it passed. It has halted unemployment at around 10% instead with a million jobs and a boost to GDP.
“…a massive healthcare reform bill should be put on the back burner until the economy is fixed.”
Why? Is there something Obama can do instead of working on health care that will speed up the recovery?
Didn’t Obama state it would cap at 8%? It was passed in a relative short time was it not?
I think Obama should work with the states on incentives to create jobs. We are in no position to incur the additional costs (I believe there will be additional costs) of healthcare reform until the economy is fixed.
The Administration statement on the 8% came from the Romer Bernstein report which was released January 10, 2009.
In January when the report was released unemployment was already 7.7%.
The numbers in the report were projections which they admit were subject to significant margins of error and they clearly had underestimated the impact of the recession. From the report:
Obama signed the stimulus into law on February 17, 2009. February unemployment was 8.2%.
Again, Obama’s 8% was an estimate that was wrong before the bill even passed so I don’t see how that argument amounts to anything.
Nice spin but the part of the report that dealt with margins of error were the part of what would happen if we DID NOT pass the stimulus. Don’t rewrite history, we were told that we needed this to keep UE from going above 8%. But you make a good point, they did not know what they were talking about.
The stimulus was not designed to HOLD us at 10% or keep us from going above it.
“…the part of the report that dealt with margins of error were the part of what would happen if we DID NOT pass the stimulus.”
Wrong. Read the quote again:
That sounds a lot like it’s talking about the affects of the stimulus as well, doesn’t it? Why argue otherwise?
“Don’t rewrite history, we were told that we needed this to keep UE from going above 8%.”
What history am I re-writing? I never said they didn’t say that just that when you say in January that the package will halt unemployment at 8% but by the time the bill passes in February unemployment is already higher than 8% you know their estimates were off.
“The stimulus was not designed to HOLD us at 10% or keep us from going above it.”
Actually, it was designed to hold off a 1% expansion in unemployment. They estimated peak of 9% without the bill, 8% with. In a footnote they say, “Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.”
There is a 2% difference from 9% to 11%. You take 8% and add 2% and you get 10%. Staying at 10% instead of 11% is the same 1% change as predicted at 8% and 9%. Given the notes about predicting unemployment I’d say the package still performed the way they expected it to.
But don’t take my word for it of course. The CBO and other groups have concluded that the stimulus indeed prevented higher unemployment and increased GDP, two of the major goals of the package. The stimulus has been an early success. It’s past time to stop lying and saying otherwise.
Perhaps you should have read the first footnote before you quoted PART of the second:
Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary ubstantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.
IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTION. They are saying that UE could go much higher if we do not pass the stimulus but do not indicate that it could go higer if we do. The impression from the footnote is that we need to pass this to stay below 8% and if we do not pass it UE will go high and maybe higher than predicted. It was they who touted this as the way to stay below 8%.
The CBO, there you go again. Try looking at the parameters they are given to use for judgment. The parameters are set up so even if we had a total collapse it would show success. I pointed this out before.
The goals of the stimulus were job creation and quick. Biden and Obama said that and they changed the goals when it was obvious that this was not happeneing. They also reserved a bunch of stimulus money to flood the market just befor ethe election so they can say they are heroes and should have their Dem buddies reelected.
There are just as many groups, including those that do not have the restrictions of the CBO, that have concluded the stimulus did not work.
It all depends on which groups you want to believe. You choose to believe those that tell you jobs have been created when the UE rate has not changed and when jobs are lost each month. You cannot keep haing job loss and say that things are working.
As for saved, a BS thing. The criteria is BS and counts jobs that were never in jeopardy of being lost.
And just to makje a point, the UE number would be a lot higher if government was not hiring people (perm and temp).
That is th eonly sector that is actually growing.
Funny how when Bush had numbers much lower you all crowed about how bad the employment picture was but you think these numbers are wonderful. Heck of a job Barry…
“The impression from the footnote is that we need to pass this to stay below 8% and if we do not pass it UE will go high and maybe higher than predicted.”
And that differs from what said in what way? In no way. That’s why I wrote “They estimated peak of 9% without the bill, 8% with.” That’s also why the end of what I cited said “…in the absence of action.” Next time try actually reading my argument before you start writing that I’m wrong.
You also never said what part of history you thought I was re-writing.
“There are just as many groups, including those that do not have the restrictions of the CBO, that have concluded the stimulus did not work.”
Feel free to list these groups so we can talk about it.
“Funny how when Bush had numbers much lower you all crowed about how bad the employment picture was but you think these numbers are wonderful.”
Wrong, again. Please point me to one single spot where I said I think these numbers are wonderful.
There is nothing about the health care bill work that impacts the short term recovery or distracts Obama from working on whatever solutions remain to help the economy.
I see absolutely no reason to call for delaying unless of course I want to see it wait until the Democrats lose seats in November and can’t reconcile the bill. We’d be stuck with what we have now for another 15 years until the GOP screws up enough to give the Democrats another strong majority. Don’t kid yourself for a minute if you think the GOP wants to work on a piece by piece health care reform now or in the near future.
How about spending some time figuring out where to spend some of the unspent stimulus money to create jobs? The U.S. has hundreds of bridges in disrepair. That would be one such example.
That’s Joe Biden’s job.
Joey is incompetent, and possibly incontinent also- The calculations here are simple- concentrate on jobs- without jobs, people cannot afford healthcare, and the government cannot afford to support these people.
It is truly a chicken or the egg quandry, but if there are no jobs, you are screwed, because you CANNOT EAT HEALTHCARE.
Francis W. Porretto get’s it.
Is this what the future holds?
“I buy a car. I insure the car with minimum liability coverage, you know, just to get it on the road legally. If I get in an accident, can I then purchase collision coverage in order to cover the damage? No? I can’t? Why? What the @#$@? What good is insurance if I can’t cover any accident, past or present? That’s not fair! It’s not right! Damn those auto insurance companies! They’re ripping me off! There ought to be a law against that!”
America (or at least the 45% or so that still support the current so-called health care reform bill), do you get it?
RichV: “What good is insurance if I can’t cover any accident, past or present? That’s not fair! It’s not right!”>>
DAR
All you’ve done is outlined the problem of how to cover everyone while not letting them get coverage after the fact.
We solve this with regard to autos by requiring everyone have it.
There are solutions to this problem in healthcare but perhaps you are not aware of them? What’s your solution, or do you think it’s best to let the sick drag themselves around in the street? That would work, and is favored by the hardcore conservative, but it’s a little embarrassing when international visitors come by.
It’s how they do it in Somalia.
D.
I travel all over this country on business and I have been down many, many streets. I have yet to see anyone sick dragging themselves around.
Perhaps you could snap a few photos of this in all your travels.
If we are comparable to Somalia then it should not be real hard.
While you are at it snap a few photos of the dead piling up.
As an aside, Darrel and Adam, did the bad weather in Arkansas effect you and your family Darrel or your family Adam?
I hope that all are well and the storms did not cause your families or their property any problems.
Bigd: “I have yet to see anyone sick dragging themselves around.”>>
DAR
I am not saying that is what we have Bigd, we don’t. We passed a law, as you know, in the eighties which supposedly stopped hospitals from dumping patients.
What we have is emergency care, at inflated prices, which are then written off and routinely passed on to everyone else. It gets the emergency job done and it sort of pays for it. We don’t leave them in the streets, but it is a very inefficient, ineffective, stressful and upside down way of delivering health care to a populace. Those with chronic conditions, not amenable to emergency care, are particularly effected.
Bigd: If we are comparable to Somalia then it should not be real hard.”>>
DAR
We are not comparable to Somalia, not remotely. I would like to keep it that way and move us even further away from the Somalia example.
Regarding the weather, all is well. Didn’t notice anything really. It’s been really warm up until the last two days. Now we’re mid 40’s. Goats are happy and butting heads.
D.
I am against this healthcare bill, but I don’t believe people should be charged extra for pre-existing conditions as the insurance companies are abusing it. My brother just got insurance and was charged extra because he is on Lipitor for high cholesterol, yet he has had no signs of heart problems. I bet that most of the people in the US are on some kind of statin drug. Another brother couldn’t get insurance due to the cost because he has exertional asthma. Since being put on Singular he hasn’t had any problems or attacks in a couple years, yet he is paying extra. I don’t think this is right either.
Then keep them from abusing it. The reality is that a person using an inhaler is a higher risk than a person with no health issues.
I recently changed health insurance companies. The agent came across state lines, from Missouri (point being, if you want to sell/compete across lines, just get set up in that state and follow their regulations). It’s real cheap and it probably won’t cover stuff if things get bad. Oh well. Anyway, he was a conservative republican fellow and we had some good discussions.
Amazingly, he just stated outright that his job was unnecessary. He said he spends nearly all of his time, energy, searching for and trying to expose and exclude pre-existing conditions.
That is, he tries to find out what people are most likely to need health coverage for, AND THEN EXCLUDE IT.
This isn’t anyone’s fault. It is just the nature of for profit insurance. Our system right now is set up to try and keep people from being covered for the things they may need covered the most. Our system is sick, very sick.
With me, I have a neck injury from a car accident eight years ago. So they wrote in a rider into my plan that anything, ANY THING, to do with my neck, is not covered. If I am chasing a goat and slip and break my neck, I’m on my own.
As you know, the neck is rather important and connected to a lot of things. But because of this pre-existing condition, I can’t have any coverage on anything to do with my neck. Even if the new incident clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the old whiplash pain.
And I am young and healthy. Imagine people with a long string of health issues?
D.
57% of visits to the ER are for non emergent conditions and that includes a lot of people with insurance. They cannot get an appointment fast enough so they use the ER.
Consider that an average ER visit costs the hospital between $500 and $1000. Consider that ERs are NOT filled with the uninsured. A 2008 study showed that ONLY 14 percent of ER visits involve patients without health insurance. More than 50 percent of visits (most often for minor complaints) are for people who earn more than four times poverty level, and that 29 percent of the people going to ERs are not only insured, they also have regular doctors. Doctors that they can’t get in to see! FOX
Darrel, This is what you wrote:
Seems to me you were intimating that we leave people in the streets and that we do things like they do in Somalia…
Bigd: “Seems to me you were intimating that we leave people in the streets”>>
DAR
I guess I wasn’t clear. That wasn’t my intent.
[article quote]
“ONLY 14 percent of ER visits involve patients without health insurance.”
DAR
ONLY?
Consider:
“New Data Say Uninsured Account for Nearly One-fifth of Emergency Room Visits
Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Press Office: July 15, 2009
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today released new data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample—the largest, all-payer emergency department database in the United States…
These data indicate that uninsured persons accounted for nearly one-fifth of the 120 million hospital-based emergency department visits in 2006.
“Our health care system has forced too many uninsured, rural and low-income Americans to depend on the emergency room for the care they need,” said Secretary Sebelius. “We cannot wait for reform that gives all Americans the high-quality, affordable care they need and helps prevent illnesses from turning into emergencies.”
Link
DAR
20% of 120 million is 24 million visits to the ER by the uninsured. That is not an insignificant number or cost.
D.
Let us also consider that ER visits only account for 3% of health care costs. The screaming about people using the ER and that is driving costs up is untrue. If we denied all of them it would make little difference to the cost.
Set up some free clinics and let the doctors who support Obamacare work for low wages taking care of people who do not appreciate what they are getting because they deserve it…
Bigd (above): “57% of visits to the ER are for non emergent conditions and that includes a lot of people with insurance.”
Bigd (now): “Let us also consider that ER visits only account for 3% of health care costs.” >>
DAR
Interesting:
You said: “57% of visits to the ER are… non emergent” and then you quote those Freakonomic fellows who say at your link:
“only 12 percent of E.R. visits are non-urgent…”
So which is it, 57% or 12%?
I think you can toss the Freakonomic guys. Their material is worthless. Here is a link to a little example of how bad they are. I’ll post it here in order to not clutter up your thread with something off topic. They are not a reputable source at all.
I think they may be distorting this quote:
“Calculating the Cost of Emergency Care”
“Nationwide, only 12% of ED visits require immediate hospital admission.”
PDF.
Bigd: “ER visits only account for 3% of health care costs.”>>
DAR
Define “health care costs.” Standard sources put US “healthcare costs” at 16% of GDP.
GDP is about $14.2 trillion.
16% of that is: $2.272 trillion.
3% of that is $68 billion.
Nothing to sneeze at. But I forgot that the 3% number came from those Freakonomic guys. Not a good source considering how bad they contradict your 57% claim.
Anyway, my point is, last minute ER care is not a good way to deliver comprehensive health care to a population. It’s expensive and ineffective for chronic conditions and provides zero for prevention etc.
D.
Then maybe you need better insurance.
Blue Cross is set up in many states but you alluded to the problem. Set up to do things they require.
State mandates cost money. In MD insurance is required to cover over 40 items, many of which people do not need or want. Abortion services might be something that some people want but why do single males have to pay for it? Why do I have to pay for substance abuse treatment when I do not drink alcohol or use drugs?
The mandates are a part of the problem.
Bigd: “State mandates cost money.”>>
DAR
So you want the Federal government to override the will of the states and require that states let out of state insurance companies come in and sell what they want? What happened to “states rights?”
Bigd: “Why do I have to pay for substance abuse treatment when I do not drink alcohol or use drugs?”>>
DAR
Isn’t that like saying “why do I have to pay for cancer coverage when I’ve never had cancer?” Obviously lot’s of people who end up needing substance abuse treatment didn’t use to abuse these things.
D.
Two things Darrel. No it does not bother states rights because the solution is to allow across state lines insurance. Right now MD has a market because only about 4 companies will compete here so they can charge what they want. If people could shop around other states and find fewer items that are cheaper then the insurance companies would be forced to work to compete.
Secondly, the rights are for the states or the people. The people have the right to decide and if we could compete across state lines then we could break up the monopoly that politicians are not willing to mess with because of the POLITICAL DONATIONS.
Third, no your assessment is wrong. Your question still assumes use as in lots of people who end up needing SA treatment did not use to abuse. I clearly wrote that I did not USE them as in AT ALL. I cannot need treatment for substance abuse if I do not USE AT ALL the substances that lead to abuse.
No one is treated fro substance abuse if they have never used substances of abuse.
The cancer analogy is wrong as well as one is an item that people have control over and one is not. As I said, if you NEVER use substances of abuse you do not need SA treatment.
And why should single men pay for abortion services?
Learn what you are talking about before you jump in.
And a huge number of people WITH insurance use the ER for visits. This will only get worse with more people and the same number or fewer doctors.
Here is my favorite little comedy video that deals with the pre-existing condition issue. It’s what our police service would look like if they had to screen for preexisting conditions.
Only thirty seconds. Check it out:
[Edited by BD — not linking to My Barak Obama. You can go there and find it if you want to see it]
Of the twenty I think the best are:
Angela’s Story
Is This Really the Way it Should Work?
Serve & Protect
The Kids Are Covered
Tough Choices
D.
Yes, sob stories all over. News flash for you morons. Even with health care coverage and all the things in place people still die and have sob stories.
The kid who went to see Harry Reid and was used as propaganda, his mother received all the medical care she needed. And she still died.
People die.