Equity market says US Health Bill is killed

[Random]

The Democrats will certainly not have a better chance than this year to pass a healthcare reform bill of any type for a long long time.

I keep seeing this idea everywhere and I just don't buy it. We have over 35 million American citizens without health insurance, a hundred thousand Americans dying each year due to a lack of health insurance, and we have an additional million families a year being driven into bankruptcy over medical bills. If nothing is done, these numbers will only go up.

The system is flying apart at the seams and everyone who looks at the numbers knows it. The free market is not going to solve this problem, largely because as far as the free market is concerned there is no problem. If a carpenter making $40k a year choses not to pay $20k a year for health insurance for his family of five, that's not the fault of the market is it? It also doesn't help that heathcare costs don't seem to respond to the usual market forces. One way or another, change is going to come sooner rather than later.

Republicans can win election after election by railing against big government, but after a certain point, they actually have to sit down and solve problems. Healthcare is a big problem, and telling a man that America has the best healthcare system in the world is unlikely to sway him as he sells his house to pay for his sons chemotherapy.

IMO, the only reason Dems are having trouble with healthcare this time around is that they learned all the wrong lessons from Clinton. They took single payer off the table right at the start for no adequately explained reason, granted concession after concession to "moderate" Republicans in the hope of bringing them onboard long after it was clear they were only in it to hurt Obama (and said so clearly and distinctly), and tried to write a healthcare bill that doctors, insurance companies and pharmacuetical companies could accept, when any plan that has any hope of actually working will require you to screw over at least two of those groups.

I bet that within ten years, Dems and Republicans are going to be winning national elections campaigning explicitly on a pingle payer/socialized medicine platform, and insurance companies and pharmacuetical companies are going to be kicking themselves for not putting more pressure on Republicans to get this bill passed.

 

[Peephole]

Single-payer will not pass any time soon, the votes simply aren't there. There were barely enough votes in the House for a public option.

 

[dudalb]

This is bill is very useful. Far from perfect, but a lot better than the status quo.

I doubt there are 50 votes for a single-payer plan in the Senate or the House.

A European/UK style single payer plan was never a real option. Very few Dems were in favor it,even from the LIberal wing of the party.
Basic fact of American Politics: Choice is very important, particualrly about something as private as health care.

 

[MattusMaximus]

They can't if Brown is elected because then the Republicans will have enough votes to prevent cloture in the Senate. The only possibility is for the House to accept the Senate version of the bill, but that's going to run into stiff opposition from House "progressives". And I suspect that more of the blue dogs will defect on this bill if not entirely from the Democrats given the current mood of the electorate.

Well, this might be more likely than you think, because I heard Pelosi on the radio this afternoon stating unequivocally that "we're going to get health care reform done soon" regardless of the MA election results.

That tells me she's doing a lot of arm twisting in the House already to push this very thing.

There's also the possibility, however remote, that some Republicans might actually want to negotiate on the bills on the table, as opposed to killing HCR altogether. What do you think of this possibility? (It's a serious question)

 

[Praktik]

Is a 2% rally significant or is it within the bounds of a typical market fluctuation?

ya good question!

I was hoping someone with more knowledge on this would speak to the market side of things...

 

[MattusMaximus]

Is a 2% rally significant or is it within the bounds of a typical market fluctuation?

I see nothing atypical about a 2% fluctuation over one day. Now if it's a continuing fluctuation of 2% a day, per day, for a week or two, then you might have something.

 

[mhaze]

The fact that the US health care bill is killed or is going to be killed does not mean that zombies may not arise or may not have already arisen.

They may largely populate DC, come to think of it.

 

[mhaze]

Well, this might be more likely than you think, because I heard Pelosi on the radio this afternoon stating unequivocally that "we're going to get health care reform done soon" regardless of the MA election results.

That tells me she's doing a lot of arm twisting ...

It may be time for the adults to take charge.

 

[Ziggurat]

Australia has it, and it's not a disaster.

And Australia's health insurance system is very different from America's, so that's rather irrelevant to my point.

I saw and episode of an American TV show once with a scenario. Person changes jobs, goes for health check, feels fine. Health check reveals cancer, no insurance cover.

And I saw an episode of an American TV show where a psychic solved a murder. Your standard of evidence is... lacking.

If you have employer health insurance and switch jobs and get coverage with your new job, your insurer is legally prohibited from denying coverage for pre-existing coverage. Furthermore, cancer which was not previously discovered doesn't even count as a pre-existing condition for most (maybe even all) employer health insurance.

 

[a_unique_person]

And Australia's health insurance system is very different from America's, so that's rather irrelevant to my point.

It's not. The private health insurance system uses community rating.

And I saw an episode of an American TV show where a psychic solved a murder. Your standard of evidence is... lacking.

If you have employer health insurance and switch jobs and get coverage with your new job, your insurer is legally prohibited from denying coverage for pre-existing coverage. Furthermore, cancer which was not previously discovered doesn't even count as a pre-existing condition for most (maybe even all) employer health insurance.

If you get coverage. What if you never get coverage for the new job?

 

[Ziggurat]

If you get coverage. What if you never get coverage for the new job?

You really don't have a clue about how health insurance works here, do you?

If your employer has a health insurance plan, the plan CANNOT turn down new employees. If the employee had no previous insurance, they can deny coverage for preexisting conditions (but not for other conditions) for a period of 18 months, after which they have to cover it. And if the employee did have previous insurance, they cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. But your scenario doesn't even count as a pre-existing condition, which in this context means a condition that they received treatment for previously.

Do people ever find themselves up a creek because of previous conditions? Yes. Does it happen the way you apparently think it does? No. You haven't got a clue, AUP.

 

[DavidJames]

... many of whom are Republicans, and who do not agree with you about what is the right thing to do for them, and who probably do not have a lot of appreciation for social change based on the principle of "screw the Republicans". But hey, you're more than welcome to see how that strategy plays at the polls. Seems to me it's been failing miserably all year, but perhaps you're just the guy to show us all just how awsome "screw the Republicans" really is.

You almost understood my point, but the bold part shows you clearly don't.

I see the studies and polls from the rest of the world and note that we pay more and are less satisfied then most. But as you suggest, (and I won't disagree) most of us are to stupid, arrogant, xenophobic and afraid to even look at something invented elsewhere.

No, I would fail miserably as politician.

 

[PogoPedant]

A European/UK style single payer plan was never a real option. Very few Dems were in favor it,even from the LIberal wing of the party.
Basic fact of American Politics: Choice is very important, particualrly about something as private as health care.

Which is an odd objection, since in the various non-US health care systems I have experienced, I have had no choices forced on me. What do you get to choose in the US that I don't get to choose in Norway or the UK?

 

[Francesca R]

I must admit I have always been skeptical of the connection between the vagaries of the market and short-term political developments. Is there an evidentiary basis for supposing the 2% rally was because of what was happening in Massachusetts?

I guess I am also somewhat ignorant of financial matters but from this layman's view, the complexity of markets make pointing to a single cause (disregarding outlier situations) as the reason for this or that increase/decrease makes these kinds of pronouncements kind of silly IMO...

No, for sure there wasn't a single cause. Everyone who got more optimistic on stocks or a stock, or bought them or decided not to sell them was not doing it for the outcome of the MA election. The market reaction is decidedly less reliable than a spread-betting market for that matter.

However my stong suspicion is that marginal traders/investors were concluding that the probabilty of health reform shrank a fair bit, and that they may well be right. It's marginal participants that matter, same as marginal voters are what swing elections.

 

[Francesca R]

Which is an odd objection, since in the various non-US health care systems I have experienced, I have had no choices forced on me. What do you get to choose in the US that I don't get to choose in Norway or the UK?

You don't get to opt out of the system and take your contribution back. Americans have more choice in this decision.

 

[PogoPedant]

You don't get to opt out of the system and take your contribution back. Americans have more choice in this decision.

Alright, that makes sense, although at least in Norway you can partially opt out by becoming self-employed and not contributing to the health-pool. In that case you will not get sick-pay for the first sixteen days of missing work due to illness. You're still covered for treatment, though, and that means you're still paying for it through taxes.

Thanks

 

[Francesca R]

Americans can only partially opt out, because there is an income tax subsidy for employer-based insurance which you can't recoup if you go it alone. Also (I'm not an expert on this) employers sometimes kick in some of the premium for employees on top of salary, and the employer contribution probably can't be recouped either.

 

[Brainster]

Well, this might be more likely than you think, because I heard Pelosi on the radio this afternoon stating unequivocally that "we're going to get health care reform done soon" regardless of the MA election results.

That tells me she's doing a lot of arm twisting in the House already to push this very thing.

There's also the possibility, however remote, that some Republicans might actually want to negotiate on the bills on the table, as opposed to killing HCR altogether. What do you think of this possibility? (It's a serious question)

Pelosi's in a safe district; in fact, the only danger to her is from the left flank. The problem is that there are a lot of Democrats in the House who are not safe; IIRC there are something like 46 Democrats who come from districts where McCain won in 2008.

The problem for any Senate Republicans willing to make some sort of deal is that they will definitely be in danger of a challenge from the emboldened right wing, so the House Republicans are out of the question. I thought all along that the laughing around here about the Tea Party set assumed that they would end running the Republicans into the ground; instead they might end up running Congress next year.

Note as well that some moderate Senate Democrats are urging a go-slow approach; including Jim Webb :

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

And Evan Bayh:

It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message. They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.

Obama's going to have to trim his sails as Clinton did after 1994.

 

[a_unique_person]

Pre-existing condition exclusions A pre-existing condition is a health problem that you had before you joined your medical plan. If you are a cancer patient and join a new health insurance plan, you may face a pre-existing condition exclusion period. With a pre-existing condition exclusion period, your plan will make you wait before they pay the costs of the pre-existing medical problem. The wait may be as long as a year for insurance you get through an employer.
If you refuse health insurance when it is first offered and then sign up later, the pre-existing condition exclusion can climb to 18 months after you sign up. And the time can be longer for independent policies and those not through an employer. In fact, some insurance may not cover certain illnesses at all.
If you get health insurance through your job, Federal law prevents the employer from imposing an exclusion period for a pre-existing condition in some situations. You may be able to avoid the exclusion period if you have had health insurance with a previous employer and have not been without health insurance coverage for more than 63 days. Some states require an employer-based insurance company to cover your pre-existing condition even if you were without insurance for a bit more than 63 days. You can call the U.S. Department of Labor at 1-866-444-3272 to find out more about your specific situation. (See the section, "The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996" for more information.)
But if you are getting a plan that is not group coverage (including high risk pools), the pre-existing condition exclusion period can be many years or even unlimited. If you are getting a plan through someone other than an employer, the insurance provider can impose an elimination rider that would keep that disease, body part, or body system from ever being covered by that policy. It's important to know these things up front, before you sign up.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/mlt/c...ea=&level=1#Pre-existing_condition_exclusions

 

[Random]

You really don't have a clue about how health insurance works here, do you?

If your employer has a health insurance plan, the plan CANNOT turn down new employees. If the employee had no previous insurance, they can deny coverage for preexisting conditions (but not for other conditions) for a period of 18 months, after which they have to cover it. And if the employee did have previous insurance, they cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. But your scenario doesn't even count as a pre-existing condition, which in this context means a condition that they received treatment for previously.

Do people ever find themselves up a creek because of previous conditions? Yes. Does it happen the way you apparently think it does? No. You haven't got a clue, AUP.

While employee health insurance plans cannot refuse new employees with existing conditions, they can encourage the employer to fire the employee. This is fairly easy with small businesses that don't have much bargaining power. Simply tell the employer at the next legal opportunity that their group rate is going to triple with the addition of the new employee. The employer is free to find another group health insurance plan, but will then face the same problem that a person with a pre-existing condition would find getting insurance on the individual market (no one will sell them a policy except at inflated prices). Only way out is to find some reason to drop the sick employee.