As a wannabe conspiracy theorist, I’m tempted to think that Dr. Angell and the other single-payer extremists are “under the table”, rather than “at the table”. Independent analyses by Steven Parente and the Lewin Group conclude that between 40 million and almost 90 million people will be crowded out of private coverage into a “public option”.
All serious analysts have concluded that the “public option” is a Trojan horse for government-monopoly health care. Dr. Angell and her faction are playing their part, repeating the same assertions about the short-comings of the Massachusetts experiment that libertarian/conservative analysts do, but leading to a very different conclusion.
She is preparing public opinion for the consequences of ObamaCare 1.0: higher taxes, lower quality, rationed access, and guaranteed profits for health insurers so that when those consequences appear she can bring forward ObamaCare 2.0 – single payer – which replicates all those faults except the last.
John Graham-
The Lewin Group is far from “independant”. They are owned and operated by insurance and therefore cannot be trusted to do anything other than parrot the talking points of insurance. When you read something put forward by the Lewin Group, you should eliminate the lewin group and insert the name of your nearest insurance agent.
Lewin Group is not reliable because of the inherant conflict of interest. Everything they say and have said, needs to be thrown out because they have no integrity and can only repeat the insurance line on healthcare reform.
Ken-
Why are you delkighted that “marcia” is not at the table? Could it be because she is telling the truth about insurance and the enormous power they weild? Or is it that the public option WOULD increase competition? OR is it the truthful prediction that even with a public option, insurance will dump the un-ddesirable and continue to scam the healthy?
Anyway there isn’t anything for you guys to worry about. These thingsa have a historical progression.
1) Reform is proposed
2) Conservatives and insurance start to minimize the issue
3) Conservatives and insurance start terrifying the public to swing opinion (usually the historical targets are the elderly which is the same now)
4) Conservatives demand more “time”
5) The original reforms are abandoned in the hope that a “compromise” can be reached
6) either reform dies for yet another 10-20 years or the reforms that are passed are beneficial only for buisness and not for consumers.
So what has happened during the present round of reform talks?
1) Obama proposes reform
2) Conservatives and insurance team up against reform through minimizing, (lowering the number of un-insured), to terrorism (communism, rationing, threaten higher prices)
3) Conservatives ask for more time (Allowing them to further destroy reform)
4) Obama and the white house now make signs that the public option isn’t really required
5) Reforms will most likely take the form of tax-credits and de-regulation.
deregulation reduces the buisness costs and those savings will be pocketed as profit…. the public will continue to see their premiums increase.
Tax-credits have no chance of getting the un-insured insured. a)The amounts are not enough to provide for insurance premiums and b)taxes are taken to pay off pre-existing medicalbills therefore assuring that the un-insured doesn’t get any benefit from a tax-credit.
Conservative “reforms” aren’t reforms they are profit generation for corporate america at the expense of the american citizen.
except that a public option won’t “replace” thre insurance monopoly but would compete with it. People are saying that buisness would drop private coverage because a publicoption reduces its premiums by 10-20%. Of course it makes sense to go with the least expensive. BUT that doesn’t mean that private insurance cannot compete. Private insurance could also lower their premiums by 10-20%.
Research and technology advancement wouldn’t suffer scince these are already paid for by taxpayers through grants and that wouldn’t change.
Coverage wouldn’t lessen, (unless insurance decides otherwise), because insurance wouldn’t be losing money. They enjoy 450% profit margins as it is, and insurance could even expand coverage with no losses incurred to the investors, and so saying that private insurance wouldn’t be financially viable is another myth of the insurance groups to kill reforms.
The simple fact is that the only reason that private insurance couldn’t compete is because they would choose not to. Not because they are incapable.
I am glad that someone is calling on the insurance companies to divulge just how much they fleece customers.
I fully expect there to be a huge outcry from insurance and conservatives about privacy and junk like that, but if they truly have nothing to hide, (like stealing from Americans), they wouldn’t mind. The very fact they are crying foul just shows that insurance does have something to hide. They don’t want the public to find out just how little overhead they have against the amounts they charge.
the idea that it will “compete” with private insurance is laughable. Its just another fancy name for single payer care. I’m glad the conservatives are crying foul.
The only ones laughing are the insurance companies who are the only ones winning at this point. They are getting more sure that they can do what they want, drop coverage on whomever they choose and for any reason they can invent, raise prices as high as they want and no-one will stop them. The only reason that private insurance could not “compete” is because they choose not to. They haven’t had to compete before and they aren’t about to start now.
Brian, are you aware that Medicare is run almost everywhere by Blue Cross? If there were a public option under Obama Care, who do you think would run it?
Joe-
I am completely aware that medicare and medicaid are administered by private insurance. The difference being that in those cases, (medicare/medicaid), insurance cannot use its usual buisness practise, they actually must provide adequate coverage and they cannot drop coverage arbitrarily.
Also they cannot dictate what doctors a person on medicaid/medicare may or may not see. They cannot demand that you only get hospitalization only at the “approved” hospitals. Medicare/medicaid is far more free in choice that private insurance. There are limits on medicare and medicaid but far fewer limits than those imposed by private insurance.
And as for who would run a “government option”, (better known as the PUBLIC option), private insurance would also be running the show there but with the adjusted rules. So fraud-wise, private insurance charges the government fraudulent charges. They charge for heart-surgery when the actual procedure was a simple hang-nail.
(just a example).
Everyone seems to think that I am just being difficult because I can. My personal reasons for my fight FOR reforming the system is personal and all these special interests and even the congress (both sides), mean nothing except for the facte that congress is yet again giving in to Big buisness at the expense of the health and wealth of American citizens. I never really thought I would have proof that insurance runs the American government but this round of reform debates certainly has shown that to be truth—- loud and clear. The government is afraid of insurance, because without the MILLIONS of bribes, governemt officials would have to turn to the American public for funds. Not the million dollar dinners but the average American (not uber-rich). Obama did it rather successfully (although I am sure even he had corporate financial backing as well, but he certainly engaged the public rather than relying on corporate America— and end up being owned by those corporations.
Brian: just discovered your diatribes. Are you not aware that patients are frequently denied health care for financial reasons in countries with national health insurance? They don’t drop your coverage. They just don’t give you the care.
Delighted to hear that Marcia is not at the table.
Glenn Beck said he is paying $500,000 a year for 20 employees’ health insurance in New York.
As a wannabe conspiracy theorist, I’m tempted to think that Dr. Angell and the other single-payer extremists are “under the table”, rather than “at the table”. Independent analyses by Steven Parente and the Lewin Group conclude that between 40 million and almost 90 million people will be crowded out of private coverage into a “public option”.
All serious analysts have concluded that the “public option” is a Trojan horse for government-monopoly health care. Dr. Angell and her faction are playing their part, repeating the same assertions about the short-comings of the Massachusetts experiment that libertarian/conservative analysts do, but leading to a very different conclusion.
She is preparing public opinion for the consequences of ObamaCare 1.0: higher taxes, lower quality, rationed access, and guaranteed profits for health insurers so that when those consequences appear she can bring forward ObamaCare 2.0 – single payer – which replicates all those faults except the last.
John Graham-
The Lewin Group is far from “independant”. They are owned and operated by insurance and therefore cannot be trusted to do anything other than parrot the talking points of insurance. When you read something put forward by the Lewin Group, you should eliminate the lewin group and insert the name of your nearest insurance agent.
Lewin Group is not reliable because of the inherant conflict of interest. Everything they say and have said, needs to be thrown out because they have no integrity and can only repeat the insurance line on healthcare reform.
Ken-
Why are you delkighted that “marcia” is not at the table? Could it be because she is telling the truth about insurance and the enormous power they weild? Or is it that the public option WOULD increase competition? OR is it the truthful prediction that even with a public option, insurance will dump the un-ddesirable and continue to scam the healthy?
Anyway there isn’t anything for you guys to worry about. These thingsa have a historical progression.
1) Reform is proposed
2) Conservatives and insurance start to minimize the issue
3) Conservatives and insurance start terrifying the public to swing opinion (usually the historical targets are the elderly which is the same now)
4) Conservatives demand more “time”
5) The original reforms are abandoned in the hope that a “compromise” can be reached
6) either reform dies for yet another 10-20 years or the reforms that are passed are beneficial only for buisness and not for consumers.
So what has happened during the present round of reform talks?
1) Obama proposes reform
2) Conservatives and insurance team up against reform through minimizing, (lowering the number of un-insured), to terrorism (communism, rationing, threaten higher prices)
3) Conservatives ask for more time (Allowing them to further destroy reform)
4) Obama and the white house now make signs that the public option isn’t really required
5) Reforms will most likely take the form of tax-credits and de-regulation.
deregulation reduces the buisness costs and those savings will be pocketed as profit…. the public will continue to see their premiums increase.
Tax-credits have no chance of getting the un-insured insured. a)The amounts are not enough to provide for insurance premiums and b)taxes are taken to pay off pre-existing medicalbills therefore assuring that the un-insured doesn’t get any benefit from a tax-credit.
Conservative “reforms” aren’t reforms they are profit generation for corporate america at the expense of the american citizen.
public option won’t increase anything except replace one monopoly with an even bigger one.
as for the single payer people, good riddance.
except that a public option won’t “replace” thre insurance monopoly but would compete with it. People are saying that buisness would drop private coverage because a publicoption reduces its premiums by 10-20%. Of course it makes sense to go with the least expensive. BUT that doesn’t mean that private insurance cannot compete. Private insurance could also lower their premiums by 10-20%.
Research and technology advancement wouldn’t suffer scince these are already paid for by taxpayers through grants and that wouldn’t change.
Coverage wouldn’t lessen, (unless insurance decides otherwise), because insurance wouldn’t be losing money. They enjoy 450% profit margins as it is, and insurance could even expand coverage with no losses incurred to the investors, and so saying that private insurance wouldn’t be financially viable is another myth of the insurance groups to kill reforms.
The simple fact is that the only reason that private insurance couldn’t compete is because they would choose not to. Not because they are incapable.
I am glad that someone is calling on the insurance companies to divulge just how much they fleece customers.
I fully expect there to be a huge outcry from insurance and conservatives about privacy and junk like that, but if they truly have nothing to hide, (like stealing from Americans), they wouldn’t mind. The very fact they are crying foul just shows that insurance does have something to hide. They don’t want the public to find out just how little overhead they have against the amounts they charge.
the idea that it will “compete” with private insurance is laughable. Its just another fancy name for single payer care. I’m glad the conservatives are crying foul.
The only ones laughing are the insurance companies who are the only ones winning at this point. They are getting more sure that they can do what they want, drop coverage on whomever they choose and for any reason they can invent, raise prices as high as they want and no-one will stop them. The only reason that private insurance could not “compete” is because they choose not to. They haven’t had to compete before and they aren’t about to start now.
Brian, are you aware that Medicare is run almost everywhere by Blue Cross? If there were a public option under Obama Care, who do you think would run it?
Joe-
I am completely aware that medicare and medicaid are administered by private insurance. The difference being that in those cases, (medicare/medicaid), insurance cannot use its usual buisness practise, they actually must provide adequate coverage and they cannot drop coverage arbitrarily.
Also they cannot dictate what doctors a person on medicaid/medicare may or may not see. They cannot demand that you only get hospitalization only at the “approved” hospitals. Medicare/medicaid is far more free in choice that private insurance. There are limits on medicare and medicaid but far fewer limits than those imposed by private insurance.
And as for who would run a “government option”, (better known as the PUBLIC option), private insurance would also be running the show there but with the adjusted rules. So fraud-wise, private insurance charges the government fraudulent charges. They charge for heart-surgery when the actual procedure was a simple hang-nail.
(just a example).
Everyone seems to think that I am just being difficult because I can. My personal reasons for my fight FOR reforming the system is personal and all these special interests and even the congress (both sides), mean nothing except for the facte that congress is yet again giving in to Big buisness at the expense of the health and wealth of American citizens. I never really thought I would have proof that insurance runs the American government but this round of reform debates certainly has shown that to be truth—- loud and clear. The government is afraid of insurance, because without the MILLIONS of bribes, governemt officials would have to turn to the American public for funds. Not the million dollar dinners but the average American (not uber-rich). Obama did it rather successfully (although I am sure even he had corporate financial backing as well, but he certainly engaged the public rather than relying on corporate America— and end up being owned by those corporations.
Brian: just discovered your diatribes. Are you not aware that patients are frequently denied health care for financial reasons in countries with national health insurance? They don’t drop your coverage. They just don’t give you the care.