Do Senate Democrats think they are royalty? It would seem so.

[leftysergeant]

Speaking of which, why are military beneficiaries and vets so eager to be shielded from the *wonders* of Health Care Reform?

Because what we have works. We weren't exactly hurting before the debate started. We were never subject to wanton recission, escalating costs and refusal of coverage. It would have helped had idiots like the Shrub and Rummy reralized the importance of funding these programs for our soldiers, and told the upper-crust that their tax cuts would have to take a second priority.

My approach to military and veterans' health care is, if it ain broke don't greak it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Did you learn your economics in kindergarTen?

Yet another BaC evasion. The topic of this thread which you started is the proposition that Senate Democrats refuse to apply "Obamacare" to themselves and want to force it on everyone else. (I have addressed competition on several threads, but that's not really the topic of this thread, is it?)

I've asked several times what you mean by this, because no formulation of it seems to make sense.

The individual mandate does indeed apply to senators.

There is no public option at all in the Senate plan, so the idea that the Senate would refuse to use it (even though they'd have no need to, since they already have insurance) or force it on others (the public option was meant to be a lower cost alternative to others--I don't think there was an plan where it was forced on anyway, but it's moot since there is no public option in the Senate plan).

So for at least the third time, what exactly do you mean when you claim that Senate Democrats refuse "Obamacare" for themselves but would force it on the rest of us?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They'll compete with one another under the new regulations just as they did under the old ones.

Even though it didn't make it into the Senate's final plan, the House's plan would remove anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies which would increase competition. I'm still hopeful that that measure will make it into a final plan.

But what does the ability of insurance companies to compete have to do with allegations of a hypocritical position? It sounds like BaC is just trying to slip out of what he said in the OP of this thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where have you been, Tricky? Are you completely unaware of the amendments offered by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and David Vitter (R-La) that required that the President and all members of Congress and their staffs enroll in any newly-created public health-insurance plan?

And where have you been? The Senate plan passed yesterday, and there is no public option in it--not for anybody.

As I've been saying (and you keep ignoring), since Lieberman's vote will be required to overcome a Republican filibuster, it's pretty likely that there will be no public option in the final merged plan.

So what are you talking about? Some purely political, for-show proposal that really had nothing to do with the real debate that was going on in the Senate?

Why not discuss the RNC's abortion coverage in their own health insurance from 1991 until a few weeks ago? It too has nothing to do with the health insurance reform bill.

 

[jdp]

The individual mandate does indeed apply to senators.

There is no public option at all in the Senate plan, so the idea that the Senate would refuse to use it (even though they'd have no need to, since they already have insurance) or force it on others (the public option was meant to be a lower cost alternative to others--I don't think there was an plan where it was forced on anyway, but it's moot since there is no public option in the Senate plan).

So for at least the third time, what exactly do you mean when you claim that Senate Democrats refuse "Obamacare" for themselves but would force it on the rest of us?

I have to agree with Joe, I don't see how this reform doesn't apply to Senators. They currently are part of a group health insurance plan so like all others how have health insurance, they won't need to buy insurance in the exchanges. Though for those who do go back to private life, they certainly might buy insurance in the exchange just like others if their private life jobs don't offer health insurance.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have to agree with Joe, I don't see how this reform doesn't apply to Senators. They currently are part of a group health insurance plan so like all others how have health insurance, they won't need to buy insurance in the exchanges. Though for those who do go back to private life, they certainly might buy insurance in the exchange just like others if their private life jobs don't offer health insurance.

Best I can tell, BaC wants to talk about a silly for-show amendment some Republicans introduced into each of the committees that were working on a healthcare reform bill a while back that would require members of Congress and their staff to take the public option.

As I've pointed out, under most formulations (and there were dozens at the time), the public option would have been an option for people who can't otherwise afford insurance. It certainly would never be forced on anyone who already has insurance. Under the individual mandate, it might be a low-income person's only option (but again, it might not--there were expansions of Medicare and subsidy plans in many versions at the time).

At any rate, it had nothing to do with the substance of health insurance reform. It was just a dramatic gesture by Republicans so that Newt Gingrich (and BaC) could go around saying that Senate Democrats don't want "Obamacare" for themselves, even though there's no way such a statement is accurate.

But since there is no public option in the version passed by the Senate, it doesn't even make sense to claim that Senate Democrats want to force the public option on others while refusing it themselves. Since every Republican voted against the plan, one can only say it was Senate Democrats (including Lieberman) who were responsible for stripping out the public option.

The Republicans were just on the side-lines of the actual debate grandstanding.

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, BAC, there is no essential right for the insurance companies to exist and make a profit if we decide that a government pool of the risk is a more effective way to be sure that doctors get paid for their services. If we can install a public system, and people would rather buy into that system than into private plans, tough cookies.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where have you been, Tricky? Are you completely unaware of the amendments offered by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and David Vitter (R-La) that required that the President and all members of Congress and their staffs enroll in any newly-created public health-insurance plan?

Senate democrats consider themselves royalty ... the will of the American people be damned:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/he...in_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=

You seem to have missed the news. The Senate version passed with no public option. None of the Senators are "forcing" a public option (you do know what the word "option" means, don't you?) on anyone.

As I've been speculating, it looks like the merged version will also likely not have a public option either.

It's only in your mind that this meaningless amendment introduced by Republicans while the various versions of this bill were still in committee matters in any way.

This is just the kind of nonsense some Republicans were doing rather than participating in an actual debate on healthcare reform.

 

[BeAChooser]

This is just the kind of nonsense some Republicans were doing rather than participating in an actual debate on healthcare reform.

Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Why are you so evasive towards that question? Perhaps because you don't believe in free market principles and you know your answer will demonstrate that? Aren't democrats just changing the meaning of the word "insurance" and driving (real) insurance companies out of business via unfair competition (unfair because government will be able to give something like health care away for free which no private concern could ever afford to do)? Of course, neither can governments in the long run. With that in mind, what is the end result of your form of economics, Joe? The same thing that happened to the Soviet Union?

 

[Cleon]

Interesting. Since my insurance is paid for my employer, I wouldn't be required to buy the public plan either. I guess Senate Democrats think I'm royalty, too!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Tell us, Joe,
<bunch of blather that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread>

The same thing that happened to the Soviet Union?

Once again, BaC trying to change the topic after putting his foot in his mouth.

Still think the Senate Democrats are trying to force anyone to use the public option while refusing it themselves?

Or wasn't this just more grandstanding on the part of a few Republicans that weren't willing to participate in the debate on healthcare?

 

[dudalb]

I agree with everything BAC Says about the Senate Democrats.
Where he goes wrong is not seeing that the GOP Senators behave in exactly the same way.
It does not matter which party is in the majority, you get a definent air of "The Common Rules should not apply to me" from the Senate, and to a slightly lesser degree, The House.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with everything BAC Says about the Senate Democrats.
Where he goes wrong is not seeing that the GOP Senators behave in exactly the same way.
It does not matter which party is in the majority, you get a definent air of "The Common Rules should not apply to me" from the Senate, and to a slightly lesser degree, The House.

Except that in this particular case it's not really accurate.

I agree, Senators get a sweet deal with their healthcare benefits. But the amendment introduced wasn't a matter of applying the same law to Senators that would apply to the rest of us. (There was no such exemption in the law to begin with.) As shown, the bill would already apply to them--they would be required to have health insurance, just like the rest of us. In their case, they already have prime health insurance, so they'd already comply with the individual mandate.

The Republicans who introduced this amendment to undo their sweet health insurance benefit knew pretty well it would never pass. (They may have also known pretty certainly that a public option would never survive the Blue Dog Democrats and Lieberman.) And they're certainly free to turn down their health insurance benefit and take out a plan similar to what the public option would have been.

But it's a safe bet they won't.

Their reason for introducing the bill was pretty much so that people like BaC would cite the vote as "evidence" that the Democrats don't want to abide by the laws they're proposing, which of course isn't true.

 

[Thunder]

I am a life-long Democrat. And while I do not believe that we are royalty, I do however believe that most Republicans are crap.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The point, BAC, is that we Americans are going to pay for health care one way or another. The VA, Medicare, etc. have proven to be more efficient and effective. So what do you want, pay through the government or pay twice as much to a private insurance company for less protection? Or maybe this is one of those, "Let 'em eat cake" situations.

Medicare is cheaper (not more efficient) because it underpays for services. To give an anecdote: I had Christmas dinner with a friend of mine and her family. Her mother, who is physically disabled and on Medicare explained her most recent bill to me. The bill for a GP visit said that the visit cost $120 and Medicare approved $29.00 of that charge and that Medicare would pay 80% of the 29.00 and she would have to pay 20% of the 29.00. She then looked me straight in the eye and thanked me for having private insurance and making up the difference for her. She knows how the shell game works.

 

[Random]

Medicare is cheaper (not more efficient) because it underpays for services. To give an anecdote: I had Christmas dinner with a friend of mine and her family. Her mother, who is physically disabled and on Medicare explained her most recent bill to me. The bill for a GP visit said that the visit cost $120 and Medicare approved $29.00 of that charge and that Medicare would pay 80% of the 29.00 and she would have to pay 20% of the 29.00. She then looked me straight in the eye and thanked me for having private insurance and making up the difference for her. She knows how the shell game works.

Yeah, Medicare is huge and able to use its size to force doctors and hospitals to agree to lower prices. This is why, counter-intuitively, increasing competition between health insurance companies will help drive up prices.

When there are more health insurance companies, they will each have a smaller portion of the market in any given area, and will have less negotiating power. Aetna cut a bunch of members not because they were sick or unprofitable, but just because they physically lived in areas Aetna didn’t have a high percentage of the market in.

 

[Alt+F4]

how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions?

In two words: age and tobacco. The Senate bill would let insurers charge older people three times more than younger ones, the House bill, twice as much. I don't recall how much more the bills say insurers could charge smokers.

 

[BeAChooser]

As shown, the bill would already apply to them

Will it? If deductibles or other provisions of their current insurance plan changes, will they be automatically thrown into the Federal insurance exchange ... like we will? Or are they exempt from that?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions?

In two words: age and tobacco. The Senate bill would let insurers charge older people three times more than younger ones, the House bill, twice as much. I don't recall how much more the bills say insurers could charge smokers.

Sorry but smoking and age are not what is meant by pre-existing conditions. A pre-existing condition is a serious medical problem (like cancer) that exists at the time the person wants to first buy insurance. It might be caused by smoking or it might not. It might happen in a 2 year old or a 90 year old. The principle behind "insurance" is that the insured pays into a pool (along with many, many others) in anticipation that they might need assistance (if they ever do) from that pool for some unlikely occurance ... not that one pays into the pool only when one already needs that assistance. The new law is going to force private insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions (like a damaged liver or cancer) that will be very expensive to treat even though they never paid one dime into the insurance pool when they were still healthy people. It's wrong to even call that insurance. And I'm curious why anyone out there might think that it's economically viable to sell such a "product"?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Will it? If deductibles or other provisions of their current insurance plan changes, will they be automatically thrown into the Federal insurance exchange ... like we will? Or are they exempt from that?

I don't understand what you're asking. The insurance exchange is government-regulated marketplace of insurance plans. How could Senators be thrown into that?

Or are you saying that their primo insurance plans might become less than primo and that they would then be able to take advantage of plans in the exchange?

I don't think it's a matter of them being "exempt from that" by law. Rather they won't need it.

ETA: Similarly, Senators won't be "exempt" from receiving subsidies. They just won't need them or qualify for them.