pan6467

Below is a letter I wrote to the US Senator from Ohio Mr. Sherrod Brown.

=========================================================

This is further rambling that didn't get sent.

It's not a question of being GOP or Dem. it's about standing up for what I believe to be right and what I believe may damage our country's future generations.

I'm on the back 9 of life and closing in on the clubhouse. I golfed my round and did ok. Now, though as I make that turn and look at the few holes left to go, I must make sure the course I left is no worse to play for those coming up behind me. And I hope they see my club selections and what sand traps and water hazards I hit and they can play a better game.

(Golf analogy of life gotta love it.)... See More

Anyway, what this Democratic Congress and President want to pass as Healthcare Reform... tears up the course and puts fricking condos there. Not ONE of them will ever have to worry about receiving the healthcare they just passed. NOT ONE.

I stood up for my party when Bush's lackeys were telling them it was "unpatriotic" to stand up to the president. I believed and do believe it is the moral obligation of a Congressperson to stand up and speak out when they know a bill, law or anything government does is wrong for the country.

NOT ONE Democrat has taken that stance against this bill.

NOT ONE has allowed a GOP Senator to debate on the floor this bill.

NOT ONE has offered to listen to the people and take forth alternatives for debate and to research it's viability and effects.

NOT ONE HAS OFFERED TO READ THE BILL THEY PLAN TO MAKE THE LAW OF THE LAND TO THE PEOPLE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND HOLD TOWNHALL DEBATES. NOT ONE.

That is not the party I have been a part of for over 2 decades.

The party I WAS a part of dedicated themselves to bettering ALL people. To making sure EVERYONE had a voice and could be heard. That policies were to be debated on, studied and worked on until a bill that benefited ALL people present and future could be openly debated, voted on and passed for the president's signature.

This was none of those and the end result stinks to high heaven and my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will never know the freedoms nor the opportunities of myself, my father and his father.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

IMO....it is a good bill, in fact, a very good bill, but not a great bill or a perfect bill.

It represents the first significant health reform ever and will provide affordable and accessible insurance for 30+ million uninsured Americans and, for nearly 200 million Americans with insurance, it will provide unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits). it puts new restrictions on insurance companies to force holding down premium increases, although I hope the House version with stronger language in removing the industry's anti-trust exemption is adopted in the final conference report. And I am disappointed that it wont include a strong public option, but it is not a deal breaker.

The debate proceeded in both the House and Senate over a nine month period, through several committees, and with numerous opportunities for Republicans to make contributions and show an interest in a bi-partisan approach. They chose to go the other direction and use every procedure possible to stall the process and mislead the public.

The final Senate bill was available online for anyone to see prior to the start of the final floor action, there were hours of debate on the floor, over the course of the final week, in which both parties had equal time, and there were Republican amendments that were offered....most of which were for the sole purpose of stalling the bill, rather than improving the bill.

If I had a Senator, he/she would have my vote if they supported this bill and would lose my vote if he/she didnt.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

If you think that insurance premiums are going to go down then you must be very bad at math. Increased risk will equal increased premium. It has to in order for the Insurance company to remain solvent. State insurnace departments will not allow an insurance company doing business in it's state to run the risk of becoming insolvent. Mandating that no pre-ex's be denied is all well and good, but the increase in premiums will be felt by everyone in order to cover those at higher risk. There's absolutely no way around that.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

Your math leaves out the fact that he way around the higher risk is to increase the size of the risk pool (by 30+ million) and the addtional way to reduce premium costs is to increase competition in what currently is a relatively closed market in many (most states) as a result of anti-trust exemptions.

I am not suggesting that premiims will go down, although for many, I would expect marginal decreases or for rates to remain relatively stable. For most, premiums will not continue to increase at rates that are unmanageable at a personal level (6% or more annually - 2 or 3 times more than wages or more than 100% over the last 10 years).

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

But you are adding HIGH RISK people to the pool. These people are largely uninsurable. They either don't work, or have some debilitating condition that has precluded them from obtaining insurance in the past. By adding these people, the rest of us will have to make up the difference in order to cover their considerable medical costs. NOBODY'S premium is going to go down because of this. At best they will increase by about 8 to 10%.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

Please provide any (objective, non-partisan) data you have to support your contention that most of the added are HIGH RISK or that increases will be about 8-10% and dont just throw numbers out in the air.

The non-partisan CBO analysis came to a conclusion completely counter to yours...most of those currently uninsured are not high risk and most of those currently in employer-based group plans will see a marginal descrease or no increase in premiums.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Neither of my Senators are listening to me. The personal responses (responses that demonstrate that the responder actually read what I wrote) stopped about a year back, and all I get now is bullshit. Barbara Boxer responded to an email I wrote about pushing for single-payer with this:
This was as of December 8. The public option has subsequently been dropped, but the mandate (which is harmful without the public option) remains. I actually like Senator Boxer ()more than Senator Feinstein), but this has been very disheartening.

Most Democrats are defeatists. I'm proud to be registered Green because even if we've got the wingnuts, at least they've got the courage of their convictions.

dc_dux

Barbara would have my vote

The Democrats, with their bigger tent and greater diversity of opinion on particular components, came up with the best bill that could be adopted.

The alternative was the status quo.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

I work in the industry, adding this many people who are currently uninsurable, be it health related or the inability to afford the premiums, will create an adverse selection which in turn will increase the price. There is no way that adding that many people will in any way decrease the premiums. Removing the pre-ex clause in Health insurance will only serve to further increase premiums. Do you really not understand that? That would be like mandating that no pre-exs apply to life insurance. If that was the case then every terminal cancer patient( or other terminal disease) would then be able to obtain life insurance. Ok, fine, but the premiums will have to go up astronomically in order to cover all the added pay outs or else the company will go bankrupt.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

I understand risk pools (I have worked with health pools, liability pools and workers comp pools) and what 30+ million more bodies (and more healthy than high risk) in the pool means...and I also understand anti-trust exemptions, closed markets and the lack of competition in many states and possible collusion in pricing.

I'll wait for you to provide the data to support your opinion.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ObieX

Those people that are at "high risk" are the ones that need the insurance the most and haven't been getting it. If this bill helps people who need the help the most then it should be supported. Giving insurance coverage to those who would need it the least, and continuing to leave those most in need out in the cold makes no sense to me.

The bill can introduce many changes to reduce costs to help these people and give everyone coverage. Stuff like allowing generic drugs from Canada would cut costs quite a bit i think. It's not like Canada is some third-world country where we have to worry about there being monkey poo mixed into the pills.

I've also heard of a lot of bad things going into this bill.. but then i look and see that all of this stuff is coming from Republicans who are, seemingly, doing everything they can to stop people from receiving proper health coverage. Why that is, i don't know. Perhaps they are sadistic motherfuckers, perhaps many of them are too rich to understand the hardships people go through in this country, or maybe they're just being flat out bribed. Very few, if any, do it because they don't like "big government".

__________________
We Must Dissent.

rahl

Bringing in generic drugs is someting I can get behind. As for lowering costs, there's nothing in this bill that even begins to adress any issues that will lower the cost of insurance.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

I agres on the generic drugs, assuming they can be traced to the place of manufacture so as to prevent the flooding of the market with counterfeits.

And you still have provided no data to support your opinion on costs.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Pre-ex clauses are outdated and cruel. Should I be punished because of the way I was born? Apparently.

rahl

The point is that I shouldn't be punished for the way you were born. Pre-ex clauses are not outdated and they aren't cruel. Do you think that someone who makes $15,000 a year with a credit score in the 500's should qualify for a $500,000 dollar mortgage? It's the same concept.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

So is having to face personal bankruptcy as a result of a medical crisis (the number one cause of bankruptcy). Capping annual out-of-pocket expenses is a significance feature of the legislation.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

I'm not sure what data you want. I'm basing my statements on the fact that I've been in the industry for 7 years. There is no data on cost increases due to the fact that this bill isn't in force yet. All anyone can do is make predictions based on how adding high risk people (due to adverse selection) increases costs. Without reducing the amount that hospitals and Dr.'s office visits cost there is no way to reduce premium.

---------- Post added at 01:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 AM ----------

And another reason premiums will go up.

Where do you think all this money is going to come from in order to pay for these things?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

You're still ignoring the issue of a much larger pool (and still assuming that most are high risk) and much greater competition.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ASU2003

So if I have been paying (or have been covered my whole life), but lost my job for a year and lost coverage, and happened to get some bad illness at that time, I would never be able to get healthcare insurance again?

rahl

I'm not ignoring the larger pool, I'm telling you that the larger pool is a higher risk and it will increase premiums. I still don't understand why people think that there is no competition. Do you think that by passing this bill that somehow there is going to be massive amounts of new Insurnace Companies that will be created? There are already 5 major companies that dominate the industry, I don't know about you but to me thats a considerable amount of competition.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

Under the current system and practices, you can have a job, have insurance, and still be denied coverage for a major medical illness or emergency.

And I am still telling you that the CBO, the Kaiser Foundation, an MIT study and others disagree with you.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ObieX

From what i understand the big reason why costs are so high in the first place is *because* of insurance (of various forms.) Doctors can charge a lot because there's a big insurance company that is going to shell out the money. A lot of costs can probably be cut by the government simply saying "no, we're not going to pay that inflated price." Costs should be properly justified.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

rahl

No you can still get insurance, it's just going to cost you more since the chances of a large amount of claims will most likely occur. If you currently have a car, 1989 honda civic worth about $2,000(pulling that out of my ass) and you trade it in and get a brand new Mercedes Benz for about $75,000, how is it in any way fair or feasable for you to pay the same amount in auto insurance premiums that you were paying for you old ass civic? It isn't. The risk on the civic is very minimal, where the Benz is considerably higher. Health insurance has to work the same way or else you deplete the Claim reserve and the company goes bankrupt.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

Human bodies are not cars or houses.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

If you have a job, and insurance, you will not be denied coverage for a major medical illness unless it is specifically stated so in the policy. In such a case you know about it at the time of the initial application.

If the CBO, MIT and others think that then they have no idea what Adverse selection means and how it will effect premiums.

---------- Post added at 01:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 AM ----------

Financially speaking they are the same.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

There are endless numbers of examples that would suggest otherwise.

I'll stick with the CBO health care analysts, the Kaiser analysts and other experts for now.

If I were starting from scratch, I would suggest that a single payer system w/o any industry role, would be my system of choice. But we cant get there from here so I'll take what I believe is the most achievable and meaningful reform we can get and, IMO, that is what is currently on the table and has my support.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

rahl

Not based in reality. If you have a policy that covers x condition, and you go the hospital to be treated for x condition you are covered and the claim will be paid. The only way that it won't be payed is that if it is specifically excluded in the policy language, and like I said you would know that at the time of the application so there aren't any suprises.


And you can stick with the CBO projections all you want, but the simple mathematical fact is that if you increase liability you have to increase assets in order to balance out. Taking on people with pre-exs will undisputably increase premiums.

You may feel thats unfair, but thats the way reality works. There's no way around it

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 AM ----------

A single payer system would eliminate premiums, but it will raise taxes so it's a wash either way. You can't get something for nothing.

The only way to truely reduce costs is to be healthier as a nation(if you have a choice) Eliminate medicaid, and all the abuses that people take advantage of. And you may or may not like this next statement, but if you skip out on a medical bill, your assets should be seized. Far too often people go the the ER with no intention of paying their bill, for totally trivial problems, or for drug seeking.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

dc_dux

We're not talking about seniors (covered by Medicare) or indigent (covered by Medicaid) or just those with pre-existing conditions.....we're talking, in large part, about millions of hard working people who happen to be employed by a small business where subsidized insurance is not offered or as an alternative and on a personal level, affordable insurance is not available on the current open market.

High risk people? Not in the opinion of many experts.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ASU2003

Or are employed by a large company that starts with the letter W that thinks it is a competitive advantage to not offer healthcare in order to have to lowest prices.

Baraka_Guru

Maybe from the perspective of the insurance industry. But I don't think this bill is designed specifically to appease the insurance industry. It's designed for the general population.

From the perspective of the government and the general population, human bodies are not the same as houses and cars. Houses have a distinct market value that appreciates and depreciates, while cars have a distinct market value that, in most cases, depreciates. Human bodies, on the other hand, are generators of wealth via labour. A healthy population is an efficient population. If America wants to remain competitive, they need to maintain a healthy workforce. Absenteeism is a huge cost, and I'm sure that there are a number of people who are not in the labour pool for health reasons that could be reintroduced with proper health coverage. And then there's the power of prevention.

Bankruptcies as a result of health issues need to be stemmed, especially considering that credit checks are now a prominent hiring tool.

This isn't just a money issue. It's a labour issue as well. I'll spare you the discussion of class politics. For now.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

rahl

I agree with you about a healthier population. But the simple fact is that the human body, just like houses and cars, takes money to cover. If you raise the liabilities of the insurer without raising their cash reserve, they are going to be unable to pay for your healthcare. It's very basic math. That's the only point I'm trying to get you to see. Yes I know that the Human body has a higher value(in most cases) than a piece of property.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

ASU2003

Not really. Unless you think that everyone has the same value, and that people who damage their own bodies lower their worth. But, by needing expensive healthcare, my premium shouldn't go up. That is why you buy insurance in the first place.

And the healthcare companies should be doing their job to make people healthier in order to make more money. It's not my fault if they go out of business because people are unhealthy. They made the bet and took the risk that as a whole, we would pay more in premiums than expenditures. Instead, the doctors want more patients to make more money, the patients want the best healthcare and everything the doctors say, but it's the job of the health insurance industry to make sure people don't need to use it.

rahl

By needing more health care, you are depeting the reserves of the insurance company. If those reserves aren't replenished there isn't enough money to cover claims. How can you people not understand simple math.

People don't have the same value, nor does their worth go down if they're injured. But their premiums have to(and should) go up when they have a higher risk.

I don't get why people are ok with this when their auto insurance goes up when they have a claim, but they get all pissy when their medical insurance goes up.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Derwood

In a nutshell, you've admitted that the goal of insurance companies is to not pay for sick people.

rahl

Not at all, I've simply stated that in order to pay for sicker people the reserves will need to be higher in order to cover the higher expense.

Again it's very simple, basic, gradeschool level math.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

ASU2003

But the problem is that you are trying to use home or auto insurance style in the healthcare field. Home insurance premiums go down if I live close to a police/fire station, have a new house, and have a smoke detector. There are also a long list of regulations and building codes that standardize things.

The thing is, we are trying to come up with a way to fix the health insurance model without going to socialized healthcare (not that I have a problem with it, if it was done correctly).

And the only way I can see getting a healthier society within the current system is if the profits of the health insurance companies are tied to the health of every person in America. If America is healthy, I have no problem with them making lots of money, if Americans are unhealthy, well then the government should be allowed to fix things and the reserves of the health insurers should go into the red.

rahl

This is where the personal responsibility of the insured comes into play. If you don't take care of yourself you should have to pay higher premiums. Just like your example of incentives given by inurance companies to people who live closer to fire/police stations. Insurance is insurance, they all work exactly the same. You can't seperate health insurance from home owners or auto in the way they work. It just can't be done.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

roachboy

actually you can shift basic definitions and you do it through a political process that changes the nature of the game of health insurance itself. in a better, more comprehensive bill, one that actually operated on the assumption that access to basic health care is a fundamental human right---maybe narrowed into a citizenship right (this is america after all & after 30 years of reactionary politics about the undocumented, maybe they're understood as less-than-human...but across the figleaf of not being citizens)--then the game would change. access would be guaranteed because a political decision had been made that this end was socially desirable.

like any game, insurance operates within rules that the industry itself did not make in their entirety.

as to the rather bland insistence that folk who "don't take care of themselves" should pay higher premiums---the fact is that there is a rather brutal and stark class system in the united states & that "taking care oneself" can and typically does end up being a projection based on a relatively narrow class position onto others who do not occupy that kind of class position. the notion is not neutral, in other words. that one can transpose it into cash money doesn't make the category any less problematic to the extent that it is a class-specific category.

one of the central points of health care reform, such as it is, is to reduce the consequences of this kind of class biais--something which once mapped out into the world institutionally becomes a mechanism of class warfare.

btw i disagree entirely with the op. i think it operates in an inverted world.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

rahl

The leading cause of medical problems in this country is heart disease(contributed to by poor diet and lack of excersice). By having such a lack of personal responsibility be you poor or rich is at the very heart of why health care costs are so high. By not forcing people to take responsibility for their actions all you are doing is enabling their bad behavior even further. I'm sorry but I'm not responsible for your bad choices. Just as you are not responsible for mine.

As far as the govn't changing the definition that defines the health insurance process, I think that is completely antidemocratic.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

roachboy

you act as though dietary choices are not a function of class position.
this is not to say that there's a 1:1 correlation...but in the main the two are very closely linked. but you'd have to think sociologically about health insurance and not simply in terms of a professional means-end rationality to see that. i'm not sure it's worth arguing the point here, but i'd be happy to try (when i'm not pretending to work)

as for the matter of who sets the rules within which insurance operates: if you think that government setting the rules is anti-democratic, then you'd have to concede that the current system is anti-democratic and that any such system would be because any such system operates within a legal framework.

but i think that's upside-down: state action allows for at least the fiction of public participation, responds to public pressure and so opens an otherwise private area to the public. so i think it's ENTIRELY anti-democratic for corporate entities to NOT be subject to legal constraints and/or pressure and/or action by way of the state. i know the neo-liberal fictions concerning corporations as in themselves democratic, but i think the arguments are nutty.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite