Health Care bill

[knapplc]

The same thing happened when it was announced that credit card "reform" was coming - everyone started raising their rates. Is that not the fault of the one who instituted the policy change? Here we have reform that is clearly aimed at sticking it to insurance companies, who honestly doesn't think they'll do anything they can to survive including raising your rates to obscene levels? I suppose if they were good honest people they'd just let themselves be bankrupted.

You're a fool if you think his problem can be solved as simply as switching providers.

And you're a fool if you think rates weren't going to continue to skyrocket without this bill. Looks like we're all a bunch of fools today.

Care to comment on how this bill does ANYTHING to control the cost of healthcare or insurance? Or how it helps ANYONE?

I'm missing the part where I said it would. Kindly show me?

[urbanbreez]

Clearly demonstrating your mastery of the concept of capitalism.

This is not a rate change base on market conditions, but entirely precipitated by government interference. Their costs are going up, they pass those cost increases along, it's not really that hard to understand.

By "their costs" you mean cost to insurance companies?

Two things are responsible for most rate increases:

1) High rate of claims. A lack of medical coverage leads to not enough preventative care and early diagnosis. These people get sick more often and file more claims. More claims (higher payouts) higher premiums for everyone in that group. Plain and simple.

2) Medical expenses increase when hospitals/doctors treat uninsured patients. Every insured person gets to share that cost. Yay us.

This bill is designed to address both concerns. It's really not that hard to understand. Or just go with your whole Obama hates insurance companies (it doesn't, actually it helps them) theory, whatever.

[fezzik]

I would expect the bill to be amended with a public option if rates were jacked up unreasonably high.

Regardless, I'm not convinced there is going to be some huge rate hike. I already touched on this point, but I think there will be considerable savings in covering people who previously just went to the ER for things for which most people go to a family practitioner...simply because they can't be denied medical care there. Those write offs have to be eaten up at some level anyway (hospitals end up over-billing insurance companies, insurance companies raise rates etc.). Also, with the addition of preventive medical coverage (deductible-free) for all new policies and added to all existing policies within a few years...logic tells me that will be a significant money saver. Instead of previously uninsured people waiting until something really bad is happening to them, these costly procedures can be headed off earlier. It also has a nice side effect of us being a healthier nation in general.

Obviously this bill is far from perfect, and I can see why people are upset that it felt rushed through...but I honestly don't think the GOP would ever vote for any bill supported by Obama. So forcing it through probably seemed like the logical choice, since the GOP agenda seems to be aimed at stymieing any legislation Obama wants to get passed...regardless of it's content. And I'm not some fanatic Obama supporter...in fact I've been largely critical of what he's done since he's been in office. I think he screwed with the bail outs and made mistakes...especially giving the money to the banks and expecting them to do anything but hoard it. I don't classify myself as a democrat or republican, and the polarized divide that is so apparent between the two paralyzes any sort of progress. It frustrates me.

One issue that I think needs to be addressed is how doctors run needless tests when making a diagnosis for the primary purpose of avoiding litigation...this helps screw up the system and the billing dynamic between hospital and insurance company.

[Art Vandelay]

This is not a rate change base on market conditions, but entirely precipitated by government interference. Their costs are going up, they pass those cost increases along, it's not really that hard to understand.

Of course it's a rate change based on market conditions. In the time that his rates went up, there was no "government interference." No more than usual anyway. That was the market reacting to new information and potential changes, not government interference.

[TheRock]

This is not a rate change base on market conditions, but entirely precipitated by government interference. Their costs are going up, they pass those cost increases along, it's not really that hard to understand.

Of course it's a rate change based on market conditions. In the time that his rates went up, there was no "government interference." No more than usual anyway. That was the market reacting to new information and potential changes, not government interference.

So impending government interference <> government interference? We're just arguing semantics here. The reason for the rate increase was the threat of ObamaCare, nothing in the free market. So yes, he is right to blame the President.

[knapplc]

So impending government interference <> government interference? We're just arguing semantics here. The reason for the rate increase was the threat of ObamaCare, nothing in the free market. So yes, he is right to blame the President.

So in 2007 when my rates increased more than they have, ever, that was Obama's fault, too, right?

[Art Vandelay]

This is not a rate change base on market conditions, but entirely precipitated by government interference. Their costs are going up, they pass those cost increases along, it's not really that hard to understand.

Of course it's a rate change based on market conditions. In the time that his rates went up, there was no "government interference." No more than usual anyway. That was the market reacting to new information and potential changes, not government interference.

So impending government interference <> government interference? We're just arguing semantics here. The reason for the rate increase was the threat of ObamaCare, nothing in the free market. So yes, he is right to blame the President.

The market speculating on possible future government interference does not equal government interference. Is it a true free market? No, but it's certainly American Capitalism the way it's been for pretty much ever.

[markj11]

I'm still unclear on who benefits, is just people who already live off the government? Do health care providers or insurance companies benefit?

[RugbyD]

I'm still unclear on who benefits, is just people who already live off the government? Do health care providers or insurance companies benefit?

Lots of different answers depending on when you're talking about it and what changes can be expected down the road. For example, insurance companies benefit because people (typically young, healthy and not in need of the product) are being forced to buy insurance. This offsets the laws prohibiting non-coverage of pre-existing conditions enough that the insurance companies signed on to the legislation b/c they were comfortable with the new stream of revenues vs potential new expenses. Down the road though, I can see a highly likely scenario where the govt sets coverage rules that squeeze insurance company profits way down, thus creating further cost-control measures that are essentially just a gutting of available quality of care. Everybody loses except a small amount of practitioners that don't accept any type insurance and can fill their waiting rooms with those who can afford cash-pay care despite getting walloped with higher taxes to pay for the massive wealth transfer that is the cornerstone of this legislation.

So broadly speaking, this is an unfortunate combination of social and corporate welfare that does nothing to control costs.

[WyldStallyn]

The same thing happened when it was announced that credit card "reform" was coming - everyone started raising their rates. Is that not the fault of the one who instituted the policy change? Here we have reform that is clearly aimed at sticking it to insurance companies, who honestly doesn't think they'll do anything they can to survive including raising your rates to obscene levels? I suppose if they were good honest people they'd just let themselves be bankrupted.

Sounds like capitalism in action. Why shouldn't the insurance companies charge $500 more if he's willing to pay it?

Clearly demonstrating your mastery of the concept of capitalism.

This is not a rate change base on market conditions, but entirely precipitated by government interference. Their costs are going up, they pass those cost increases along, it's not really that hard to understand.

how do you know this? do you work for the particular insurance company in question? without facts this is just baseless conjecture.